The tentative concession deal negotiated between Gov. Dannel P. Malloy's administration and state employee unions is dead. But suspicions it was linked the SustiNet plan to create state-run insurance live on, complicating chances of striking a new deal to avert up to 6,500 layoffs.
One element of the rumors about SustiNet is easy to debunk: SustiNet does not exist, at least not as a health-insurance program. One simple, incontrovertible fact is that there is no SustiNet coverage plan into which state employees can be enticed or forced.
But from there, the picture gets fuzzy.
SustiNet supporters say their goal--creating a state-run insurance plan to sell to the public, using leverage from the state employee health plan and other state-funded insurance programs to negotiate lower rates--can be achieved in the coming years.
Some modest pieces of the SustiNet plan became law this month without Malloy's signature. Nothing in the law creates insurance to sell to the public, but it does create an advisory board charged with, among other things, developing a business plan for alternatives to private insurance. It also allows municipalities and some nonprofits to buy health insurance through the state, possibly through the state employee health plan. Union approval is required for anything that modifies the state employee health plan.
Union leaders have been longtime backers of SustiNet. But they say it was not connected to the concession deal.
SustiNet "has nothing to do with the tentative agreement," said Sal Luciano, executive director of Council 4 AFSCME, the largest state employee union, and a member of the board that developed SustiNet. His union was one of four that voted against ratification.
"That was never, ever a consideration that happened in my discussions with labor," said Mark Ojakian, the Malloy administration's chief negotiator on the concession deal. "That was never envisioned at any point in the process, and it just blatantly is not true."
In fact, Malloy has been critical of SustiNet, disappointing the plan's supporters.
In an effort to dispel rumors before union members voted, Ojakian and Daniel E. Livingston, the unions' chief negotiator, signed a statement saying that under the agreement, health care could not be changed again without employee approval until 2022, regardless of anything the General Assembly passed.
Moises Padilla, a correction officer and vice president of an AFSCME local, said the clarification was too little, too late.
"It was so far ingrained by then, it didn't matter," Padilla said.
And as they try to move forward, union leaders face a major challenge: If union members believe they were involved in a plan to sneak changes into their health plan, can the leaders say anything to convince them otherwise?
Health enhancement and SustiNet
SustiNet and the concession agreement have one thing in common: They represent efforts to design health plans to encourage healthy behavior and preventive care--something that many businesses have already been doing.
The concession agreement would have created a "Health Enhancement Program," in which union members would have to get recommended screenings and preventive care or pay an additional $1,200 a year in premiums and face a $350 deductible. The idea was to encourage workers to take care of their health, which could lead to lower health care costs in the long run.
Ojakian said the plan was a preferable alternative to simply raising everyone's premiums. In pushing workers to improve their health, he said, it built on some efforts the state has already made, such as sending reminders to employees turning 50 that they should get a colonoscopy.
The development of SustiNet also involved discussions of ways to use the health plan design to encourage people to stay healthy, although that was not a particularly controversial part of the plan.
Luciano said similarities between the plans occurred because "it's good health care policy."
"Regardless of what plan it is, there are certain things from a public health perspective that make sense, and that's why you see similarities," Luciano said.
The cast of characters
Luciano has been central to theories about a link between SustiNet and the concession deal. He and others who worked on the SustiNet plan have been close to this year's efforts to secure concessions from state workers.
Luciano, Comptroller Kevin Lembo and Lieutenant Governor Nancy Wyman were all part of the board that developed the SustiNet plan, largely because of their jobs at the time. The board's composition was dictated by a 2009 law that called for the Healthcare Advocate and the state Comptroller to chair the board. Lembo and Wyman held those jobs. The law, which has since been repealed, also called for there to be a representative of organized labor on the SustiNet board.
Last week, former legislator and Hartford Courant columnist Kevin Rennie posted on his blog what some saw as a smoking gun: A letter from Luciano to Malloy, asking him to support SustiNet and stating that, "The state employee plan will become part of SustiNet."
Rennie wrote that the letter vindicated union members who opposed the concession deal, who he said had been characterized by union leaders as "ignorant and paranoid." The letter showed them to be reasonable and perceptive, he said.
But union leaders say it's not a smoking gun at all. The letter was dated April 14, two weeks after The Mirror reported Malloy's serious doubts about the SustiNet bill still pending in the legislature and a month before the concession deal was finalized.
Luciano said the line described the SustiNet proposal at the time and had nothing to do with the concession deal. He said it shouldn't be a surprise that someone who served on the SustiNet board would push to have the governor support its product.
Council 4 has supported SustiNet from the beginning and never hid that fact, Luciano said. The labor movement tries to build up everybody, he said, and leaders believe that everyone should have access to affordable, quality health care.
"That has nothing to do with the tentative agreement," he said.
Lembo and Wyman have also argued that there was no link between the concession deal and SustiNet.
Lembo, who remains a strong supporter of SustiNet, published an op-ed on the website CT News Junkie before the unions voted. He described the belief that the health enhancement plan is "just the SustiNet proposal in disguise" as a misconception, "Wrong," he wrote. "[The concession agreement] is a collective bargaining agreement and has nothing to do with SustiNet."
Wyman sent an email to state employees before the vote that said the proposed changes were not related to SustiNet or federal health reform
"Additionally, the legislation now pending in the General Assembly that links state employee healthcare to SustiNet will be vetoed by the Governor if it emerges from the General Assembly, which appears unlikely," she wrote.
The governor
In his second month as governor, Malloy proposed a two-year budget based on $2 billion in concessions and other labor savings from state employees. During a 17-stop listening tour that followed, Malloy defended his demand for labor savings, saying the current system of benefits was not sustainable.
He left no doubt as the tour progressed that he believed SustiNet would add to the state's financial burdens, not tame them. Today, after guaranteeing with his opposition that SustiNet would not progress this year into an actual health plan, Malloy seems puzzled and annoyed that his tentative deal with labor is seen as a back-handed way to SustiNet.
The governor has expressed frustration about media coverage.
Shortly after the unions voted, Malloy told reporters, "You guys, quite frankly, when all of this was going on, could've done a better job of reporting that I was the guy who curtailed SustiNet, and I was the guy who brought up that we couldn't put state employees into such a plan."
On March 29 at Manchester Community College, Malloy left no doubt about the depths of his concerns, especially about the wisdom of placing control over state health care spending in a quasi-public authority.
"The idea we would move these cost centers from direct government control, particularly our relationship with our employees, and turn it over to a quasi-public entity over which we have no direct control is a bit of a stretch--as in it's never been done before," Malloy said.
The same week, a Malloy's spokesman described the governor's concerns about offering state-run insurance to the public, a key piece of the plan to many SustiNet supporters who said they wanted an alternative to the insurance industry.
Later in April, a week after Luciano wrote his "smoking-gun" letter urging Malloy's support, the administration reached a compromise on SustiNet that left the "public option" dead for the session--and possibly forever.
Malloy "does not believe that [offering insurance to the public] is a viable option at this point," Roy Occhiogrosso, Malloy's senior adviser, told The Mirror at the time. "He thinks it might not ever be. And he thinks it might not be necessary to achieve the ultimate objective, which is to provide quality, affordable health care for every resident in Connecticut, which is the goal he shares with the SustiNet proponents."
Malloy, who is looking to the insurance industry to add jobs in Connecticut, last month made his own attempt to clear up any beliefs that state employees would end up with SustiNet for their health insurance.
"Nothing further from the truth could be stated," he said. "Anyone who knows inside this building the process that has been undertaken with SustiNet knows that there is no SustiNet offering, period."
While it is not a surprise that "someone who served on the SustiNet board would push to have the governor support its product". It is of concern however, that the very same person would have anything to do with the negotiation and/or "selling" of the concession package. In my opinion, it's a clear conflict of interest.
Furthermore, "The labor movement tries to build up everybody, he said, and leaders believe that everyone should have access to affordable, quality health care." Do the leaders represent everybody in CT or State of Connecticut Employees? State of CT employees ought to have
Read MoreTo solve the Sustinet confusion why not:
1. provide a written copy of the POLICY from the HEALTH INSURANCY COMPANY, not the union, with the proposed changes and show where and how money is being saved. We hear a lot about the cost savings of the proposed changes to the healthcare policy, but where is it coming from? The administrative costs alone to implement the changes must be quite high.
or
2. find another method for saving money like asking the legislature to contribute to the shared sacrifice. How about ending the addition of mileage to
Read MoreExcellent Story!
Maybe this will put some of the craziness to sleep once and for all. Malloy does not like Sustinet and it is unlikely to return in his term as Governor. A similar article like this should run in every CT newspaper and be on every TV news broadcast.
Perhaps the Governor could have helped end any confusion by vetoing Public Act 11-58. By allowing Public Act 11-58 to become law the Sustinet infrastructure is established. The Lieutenant Governor's office now contains the SustiNet Health Care Cabinet established as an advisory committee to the Governor. The Act also places requirements on the Comptroller. Why establish these requirements when our government is already overburdened?
I appreciate this story, as it exposes the "sustinet myth" as the "fire in a crowded theatre" tactic that it was.
I notice that on your front page your title refers to the "sustinet myth" but the title after the jump refers to the "sustinet rumor." This mistake will only give more oxygen to the "fire" in THIS crowded theatre.
we will vote no again!
I don't care if it's susti-net or not, I am not going to have some left wing radical like Sal Luciano tell me I have to go to the doctor and I have to have ALL my 3 kids go to the dentist twice a year or pay $1,200 a year
that is Un-American, and I will vote no, the 43% who voted no the first time will vote no and I personally know of several yes voters who are switching...
this was not suppose to be about these type of changes, this is about
Read MoreSustiNet has two influential opponents: the Insurance companies and the state workers. Further complicating things is the uncertain legal status of the Health Care mandate.
Sustinet as a driver to new efficiencies has always been suspect. The only certain winner appeared to be the delivery system which gets more prompt payment for the uninsured.
I don't believe the pricey state plan will have many takers. I don't believe the state will have the leverage to lower costs as proposed. When Husky was negotiating last December the noise from the SustiNet backers was loud and clear: if you pay the
Read More"I don't care if it's susti-net or not, I am not going to have some left wing radical like Sal Luciano tell me I have to go to the doctor and I have to have ALL my 3 kids go to the dentist twice a year or pay $1,200 a year"
GOD FORBID THAT YOUR KIDS BE GRANTED THE OPPORTUNITY FOR GOOD DENTAL HYGENE. IF YOU WANT YOUR 3 KIDS TO RUN AROUND WITH ROTTEN TEETH FRIGHTENING ALL THEIR FRIENDS AND MAKING SMALL BABIES CRY, THAT IS YOUR CHOICE. I'M SURE THE WILL LOVE YOU FOR IT.
WHAT THE
Read MoreTo EG,Please stop your yelling.I would like to point out to you the fact that my family & I are enrolled in United Healthcare dental.We pay a deductible on cleanings,X-rays & other procedures as well. When I told my dentist of many years about the proposal he said he would definitely not be participating.He said he has no way of knowing how much,if anything, the state would reimburse him.We are all willing to pay higher deductibles and co-pays, but having this plan shoved down our throats is the last straw!!
"I don't care if it's susti-net or not, I am not going to have some left wing radical like Sal Luciano tell me I have to go to the doctor and I have to have ALL my 3 kids go to the dentist twice a year or pay $1,200 a year"
It should be easy to spot her at a Union meeting, just look for the woman with sever dental issues.
"Submitted by mamiejane on Mon, 07/11/2011 - 11:58am.
we will vote no again!"
- You mean YOU will vote no again.
Whether or not sustinet was linked to the concessions is a moot point now. Here perception turned into reality.
But it is interesting to see that there appears to be at least two very different "unions" within one. One is a very progressive/liberal group personified by the leadership (Luciano, Livinston, Dorman, O'Connor)all of whom personally embrace a public healthcare option.
The other significant branch seems to be largely blue-collar politically conservative labor types. These are folks who consider Sustinet to be the first step in President's Obama's national healthcare plan - and they
Read Moremaimiejane is surely part of a group against concessions. Either that or she is cutting and pasting ver batim, other people's posts...
If there is a new, clearer proposal-i would not doubt it would be a yes vote............
the website votenotoconcessions used the state of ct's badge without permission! Just to make the "words on that site look official"...
Interesting, on the vote no website-all the blogs look they were cut and pasted on to here... hmmmmmmmmmm People cant speak or think for themselves so they let a website in which its creator is unknown, think for them.
IF THERE IS A RE VOTE-VOTE YES!!!!! Be smart..
The Sustinet issue has become a smokescreen. It was not all about that. That was just the final straw that caused 43% to vote NO.
First, we didn't want to give up a raise that we waited for after giving back $700MILLION just 2 years ago. We have a contract that did not expire so it would be foolish to go any further IMO. But then they added in 10 years of a 3% giveback in pay to pay for retirees healthcare. That would negate raises for 10 years. So 0-0-3-3-3
"truth hurts" - What you say is at least for the most part true. But what you DIDN'T mention is that state employees in OTHER states are getting clobbered even WORSE - WAY worse. If this agreement doesn't get ratified one way or another, come 2017 both active AND retired employees are VERY likely to get screwed ROYALLY on their pensions and health insurance... and active employees will probably get NOTHING on the wage issues as their contracts expire. Taking such a "gamble" on 2017 is NOT a very smart idea.
So, from what I can see, there is about half of the no-voters (like mamiejane) who are convinced that this is Sustinet, and instead of being protected from ANY changes (Sustinet in the absolute worst case scenario) until 2022, they are only protected until the current contract runs out, 2017. Brilliant.
The other half of the no-voters have understood that this plan is not Sustinet, they just don't believe they should have to give up their 3% raises to pay for retiree's healthcare...which includes their own, by the way (like the truth hurts)
Nope, let's just close our eyes
Well, we have reached an impasse with the state workers, and it is difficult to balance the state budget unless at least 7,500 state workers are removed or eased out of the state payroll on or before August 31,2011.
The question is how are we going to achieve such a feat without throwing the economy into severe turbulence or a tail spin.
Remember that if we lay off the junior state workers, that is about 25,000 to 30,000 needy people that will be put at risk (the typical family consists of four members). Then, we may have additional
Read MoreNo will surpass 51% without question
if malloy does what he says and lays off, the people who voted yes out of fear and seeing their 3 perent pay raise, know the union is COMPLETELY dishonest, Luciano, Livingston, Odonnell, Dorman, etc, people are disgusted....
again we can spin all we want, I know at least 25 no voters and they all tell me they are not switching, I have gotten at least 8 people who said they voted yes and regret it...nobody likes this deal and if they comeback with the same deal, 51% no's at least I guarentee it
Read MoreI dont think state-haters care if our families are without food or a roof over our heads. They certainly dont care that a majority of us, get the same pay as everyone else. I am not squaking at not getting a raise, a change in health care or a change in benefits. I rather have a full paycheck then 60% of my normal pay under un-employment.
Take that aside, I rather not see agencies reduced to non-functional with the lack of employees they allready have. I understand your retirement plans... I really do, but guess
Read MoreAs a state worker, and one that will retire before the current contracy expires in 2017, I can see and UNDERSTAND most of the points presented here. Yes, this proposal would have required us to pay 3% for retirement health insurance, but in exchange, it would have removed said, EXTREMELY INPORTANT BENEFIT from the negotiating table in the future, as it would have made it a self funded vehicle and less vulnerable to future legislative action. It would have also made it much more difficult for the state to mess with this benefit in 2022, thus giving our
Read MoreThere is nothing to renegotiate. The union had their chance and they turned it down. It is time to start the layoffs.
Hey Puzzled - You sound like a SEBAC rep trying to sell the failed deal. You make fact-like assertions that are really your guesses about what actions our legislature may take against unions in the future. Use your crystal ball to go get rich at the horse races! You are probably wrong about the legislature's appetite to do anything drastic near term to state workers. Who knows what 2017 will look like economically? Anyway, state workers are tired of being threatened every two to three years and told that they are responsible for giving back enough
Read MoreBefore the layoffs start to flow, I'd just like to say that I truly respect and have nothing but the highest regard and admiration for Larry Dorman, Matt O'Connor, Dan Livingston, Sal Luciano, Dannel Malloy, Roy Occhiogros, Mark Ojakian and Ben Barnes.
I don't know all of them personally but I DO know that they are NOT "in bed with one another." Each and every one of them has done their very best at trying to fulfill their respective roles under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. I think they ALL believe in the State of Connecticut, in the constructive role
Read Morewhat happened to open enrollment? if sustinet is no more why isn't open enrollment open?
Again it is not just junior workers getting laid off I am not sure where people get that. There are plenty of senior employees getting laid off.
The fact is employee's are not afraid of the word SustiNet,but the changes in healthcare whatever it is called now or in the future.Most feel other implementaions/give backs or incentives could have been put in place to save money and jobs.If another vote is allowed it should not take two weeks to conclude as before.
Oh Please! I am not interested in other state workers getting a worse deal than the one offered to us. I am not even concerned about what might happen in 2017 because no one knows what that will be. To say it could be worse is all scare tactics and conjecture. Let's deal with what we have today and let 2017 take care of itself. I'm not willing to impact the rest of my life because 2017 MIGHT be worse then today when it stands an equal chance of being MUCH, MUCH better.
Changing bylaws and clarifying concession language will
Read MoreI am sorry for the newer employees, but I just sucked up furloughs and two years without raises. I am not willing to suck up two more in the "shared sacrifices" to save your job. If they re-vote, I vote "no" all over again.
"As If" - You said "Let's deal with what we have today and let 2017 take care of itself. " - *NOT* a wise idea. Only a fool lives for just today and fails to plan for the future.
I agree i am a no vote again. I will not mind so much if it passes minus the value based HC that really bothered me the state controlling our drs. appointments that is scary they would cover something you do not want or need but probably not cover something that you need. I have been going for therapy for a pinched nerve due to siting at the computer a good part of the day they would probably say we cannot cover that but make me go for something i do not want or need.
To be honest i would hate to see anyone laid off the people have a job for a reason. we need them. i hope something can be worked out. but it should be fair for everyone. don't forget those big tax increases plus if we give more back our checks are going to take a big cut in the next few years. i could care less about a 2 or 3% raise anyway what is it $15 a week. its the other stuff that bothers me.
So, SteveHC, we should be afraid of our government. We should fear retribution if we don't agree with the current "progressive," liberal, socialist politics now being installed in Connecticut. We should blindly follow our leaders or remain silent if our opinions differ, or be prepared to suffer the consequences. Do you hear what you are saying, Steve, it amounts to surrendering our right to dissent. Surrendering the very foundation upon which America was built. It is not we, the people, who should fear our government; it is those in government who should fear the loss of their jobs when the
Read More"Aristotle" - I said NO such thing, and you know it. Guess you're no "Aristotle."
Oh come on SteveHC. You are 100% sure that if the unions do not capitulate to the will of the current political forces by the time the legislature reconvenes that there will be repercussions for our disobedience. You said this, if not in these exact words. Further, you expressed hope that the legislatures response will be tempered by the fact that the dissenters are in the minority.
The super-majority required by the SEBAC rules are designed to prevent fundamental change without the consent of most. They should not be changed. To do so would allow the current "political" dogma run
"The super-majority required by the SEBAC rules are designed to prevent fundamental change without the consent of most. They should not be changed."
The problem is, the current system prevents necessary progress towards common goals at the whims of the minority.
The second problem is many of the "no" voters were the least educated about the SEBAC agreement. This is indisputable. Many voted "no" because it was "time to fight back".
I mean AFSCME locals had the misfortune of having members who havent been to a union meeting in 10 years, running around their respective work locations preaching about what
Read More"He brings experience. He's been elected."
Mike Clark on endorsing State Sen. Andrew Roraback for the Republican nomination for the 5th Congressional District race.
Get the latest headlines right to your mobile
Visit m.ctmirror.org on your mobile device
FOLLOW US ON: 
PROUD SPONSOR
MINIMUM WAGE IN CONNECTICUT
January 1, 1980 $3.12
January 1, 1981 $3.37
October 1, 1987 $3.75
October 1, 1988 $4.25
April 1, 1991 $4.27
October 1, 1996 $4.77
Septem 1, 1997 $5.18
January 1, 1999 $5.65
January 1, 2000 $6.15
January 1, 2001 $6.40
January 1, 2002 $6.70
January 1, 2003 $6.90
January 1, 2004 $7.10
January 1, 2006 $7.40
January 1, 2007 $7.65
January 1, 2009 $8.00
January 1, 2010 $8.25
PROUD SPONSOR
Printer-friendly version
Send to a friend