Why arent the contribution / premium rates based upon an employees salary instead of charging the same amount for all employees in a specific tier?
This suggestion is an option. PEBP has been very hesitant to pursue this option due to the administrative overhead (and a significant implementation cost) associated with such a provision. The same amount of total premium revenue would need to be collected by the Program and would not represent a savings overall. Why is the proposed cut in subsidy more drastic for the HMO than for the PPO Plan? The PEBP Board is still considering the final subsidy percentages for each plan option. Those decisions should be made at the December PEBP Board meeting. The differential between the self-funded plan and the HMO options helps protect the self-funded plan from adverse selection. This is important due to the State bearing 100% of the financial risk for the self-funded plan. Could the subsidy be a flat amount for everyone and then the employee buys-up if needed? This suggestion is an option. PEBP would be hesitant to implement such an approach due to the risk of adverse selection for the benefits
Related Questions
- Many RideSponsors subsidize transportation costs for their employees; trips are based on zone rates. How do we budget for this based on preloaded amount?
- Why arent the contribution / premium rates based upon an employees salary instead of charging the same amount for all employees in a specific tier?
- ARE EMPLOYEES RECEIVING SPECIAL SALARY RATES ELIGIBLE FOR BUYOUTS?
