Louisiana House Bill HB65

Louisiana 2013 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/8/13
• Refer: 4/15/13
• Report Pass: 5/28/13
• Engrossed: 5/29/13
• Refer: 5/31/13
• Report Pass: 6/1/13
• Enrolled: 6/6/13
• Chaptered: 6/18/13
• Passed: 6/18/13

Caption

Provides relative to the payment of insurance premiums for certain retirees of the Hazardous Duty Services Plan in the La. State Employees' Retirement System (EN +$10,000 FC GF EX)

Impact

The passage of HB 65 is expected to have a significant impact on the financial obligations of retirees within the specified plan. By revising the premium structure, the bill aims to ensure that these individuals are not unduly burdened with high health insurance costs, which is particularly pertinent for those who may already be facing financial constraints post-retirement. This change not only benefits the retirees themselves but may also enhance the attractiveness of careers in hazardous duty positions, potentially assisting with recruitment and retention rates in the state employees' sector.

Summary

House Bill 65 amends provisions related to the payment of health insurance premiums specifically for retirees in the Hazardous Duty Services Plan of the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System. The bill seeks to alleviate financial burdens for certain retirees by adjusting their monthly premium contributions and is aimed at retirees who left their positions specifically in January 2012 from the Avoyelles Correctional Center. The adjustments outlined in the bill will take effect in June 2013. The legislation emphasizes the state's commitment to supporting the retired workforce in hazardous duty roles, acknowledging the unique contributions and risks associated with such positions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 65 is largely positive, particularly among advocates for public employee rights and those representing retired state employees. The bill is perceived as a necessary measure to ensure equitable treatment for retirees who have dedicated their careers to hazardous service. However, there may be underlying discussions regarding the state's ability to manage the associated financial implications of this change on the overall retirement system. Some stakeholders might express concern about the sustainability of such benefits in the long term.

Contention

While the bill generally received unanimous support in the voting process—with a 31 to 0 outcome in the Senate—there could be concerns regarding its financial implications on broader state resources. Critics may argue that adjustments to premiums, while beneficial for current retirees, could introduce future fiscal challenges as demographics shift and the number of retirees increases. Furthermore, ensuring fair and consistent adjustments for all employees in hazardous duty roles across the state will continue to be a topic of discussion as implementation progresses.