Louisiana House Bill HB184

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10

Caption

Provides relative to the maximum state health insurance contribution for certain judicial retirees (OR INCREASE GF EX See Note)

Impact

The proposed law modifies existing statutes regarding the Office of Group Benefits, particularly the premium structures that determine the state’s contribution for retirees. Under current regulations, individuals retiring with fewer than 20 years of participation in the program receive lower contributions, which can range from 19% to 56% based on their length of service. This bill would ensure that a select group of judicial retirees receives a higher contribution rate, which may lead to fiscal implications for the state budget depending on the number of retirees eligible under the new rules.

Summary

House Bill 184 aims to provide a specified maximum state health insurance contribution for certain judicial retirees in Louisiana. The bill stipulates that judges or court officers who were in office on or before December 31, 2001, and choose to retire within the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System (LASERS), can maintain their enrollment in the Office of Group Benefits program. It sets the state's contribution for their health insurance premiums at 75%, a significant benefit compared to others who may receive lower contributions based on their years of service in the program.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 184 appears to be generally supportive among those who advocate for judicial retirees' benefits, viewing it as a necessary measure to honor commitments made to these individuals. However, there may be concerns among fiscal conservatives regarding the impact on state finances. The discussions acknowledge the need to balance the benefits provided to retirees with the necessity of maintaining a sustainable budget for state funds.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding HB 184 likely revolve around the fairness of providing disproportionate benefits to a specific group of retirees when compared to other state employees. Some legislators may raise concerns about preferential treatment, arguing that all state employees should have equitable access to retirement benefits based on service, rather than their profession. The debate may also touch upon the long-term sustainability of funding such benefits in the face of potential budget constraints.