Key services undermined by CS health cover
Marco Archer, Minister of Finance & Economic Development, in the LA, 6 May 2016
(CNS): Essential public services in the Cayman Islands are not getting the cash they need because of government’s massive health care bill which includes the full, premium for public servants, according to Finance Minister Marco Archer. Responding to comments by the Cayman Islands Civil Service Association last week, in which the president said its membership had not been consulted or agreed to co-pay, he said that education, national security and healthcare were under-funded because of the wider and long-term health cover costs and liabilities.
Contradicting comments by CICSA President James Watler, Archer told the Legislative Assembly Friday that the Portfolio of the Civil Service has been meeting with the CISCA Management Council over the last four months to agree on the details as to how co-pay with choice for healthcare providers would be implemented. He said that he, the premier and the deputy governor had all made announcements over the last year that by 2018 government workers would be making contributions to their own health insurance costs and it was merely a matter of ironing out the details.
In his statement, Archer said that almost 20% of public spending was on healthcare and the UK had put pressure on the Cayman government to address that problem. “Government has an obligation to pursue policy actions which address rising cost drivers where such costs are a significant element of its annual operating expenditures,” he said.
He pointed to a post-retirement healthcare liability of CI$1.18 billion and 345 outstanding overseas medical loans with unpaid balances totaling CI$12.3 million owed to the government.
The minister said co-pay was one of a number of measures the current administration was taking to cut the bill, which included increasing the retirement age of civil servants to 65, capping the lifetime limit on claims and a graduated post-retirement benefit scheme.
Government had made “great strides to control expenditure” and had avoided cutting government jobs, he said.
“The truth is there are very few places to cut in order to control cost or expenditure without adversely affecting the quality of services provided. Every day there are growing demands for new services and additional civil servants to provide those services. Essential services such as education, national security, and healthcare are under-funded because of the health care costs and the long-term health care liability,” he said.
Category: Government Finance, Politics
Marco is doing a great job, he didn’t create this mess, don’t shoot the messenger.
I do understand what Minister Archer is saying here….to an extent.
The problem (which should be a crime) is that the powers that be (current and former politicos and senior civil servants have known this for years….and ignored it so they could collect the lion’s share (most of their benefits) and now want to throw this wrench in to peoples lives. Think of how much this will increase the already high cost of living!
These same powers that be have wasted many millions over the years on poorly managed vote getters like Boatswains Beach (aka turtle farm) and have not been held accountable at all!
Now the same powers are deciding (though the message is delivered by Archer, the players are still making decisions) to make others (us and our children…and theirs) pay the tab.
Well I intend to take a stand, and sue where/if necessary….if I and my children must pay…so too should those whom have most benefitted. That means that the powers need to pay a larger percentage…as they have already reaped most of their expected benefits.
True, inclusive accountability needs to happen!
Civil servants should make a contribution toward their health and pension benefits.
The private sector cannot afford to carry the public sector as well.
I agree but if civil servants are going to cover the bill for 1 billion dollars of mismanagement, the party will just roll on.
Those that are responsible, even cumulatively, should be held responsible to collectively formulate a recovery plan. Should it not be in place and operational by a certain date they are to be held collectively financially responsible to cover it.
The CS is one big mess, and getting worst by the day, what the DG need is to implement some of the recommendations made by the many reports that we the Public paid for. DG check this out, Fire Services has a total of additional six Administration staff what it took three persons to handle of the last 40 years, Now remember it staff compliment has been reduced by 36-40 persons. Think what this is costing us the tax payers. For what?
The DG and Chief Officer for the Fire Service promised to give the expat Chief 100% support to try and prove his worth. Those Caymanians that were there never ever received that level of support from any Ministry. I must say however, that the Fire Service best days of support was under the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Minister for the Fire Service. The people need to understand how the powers that be operates. They set up the Caymanians to fail by withholding support from them. The records will show that this expat chief walked in to a position with new admin staff that the Caymanians could not get. He will now get approval for 30 – 50 staff members. I guarantee you it will happen. He already knows that the retirement age will be increased and he will get a renewal of his contract.
I believe the government is confusing insurance premiums and co-pay. Premiums are what have to be paid to the insurance company every month for insurance coverage. Under the Insurance Law, this is to be paid 50/50 by the employer and employee. The employer is not legally liable to pay Premiums for dependent’s, although some employers do.
Reading between the lines it sounds like government will require (rightfully so,) civil servants to contribute to the premiums and they will have choice of provider(s). However, they will have to pay a portion of the cost of services – commonly known as a co-pay or co-insurance. Co-pay is a set amount to be paid by the patient (the employee) and co-insurance is a percentage, e.g. 80/20 is co-insurance I.e the patient pays 20% and the insurance pays 80% of the coat of services. Nothing is being said about a deductible so I am assuming that the employees will not have a deductible which is a pretty sweet deal.
I can’t understand why Government will not open CINICO up to public participation and collect premiums from well people which will help to offset their liabilities. They should also be able then to offer lower premiums than the private insurers. They way private insurance premiums are going, only the very wealthy will be able to afford to have health coverage.
I’m very disappointed to think that this capable Minister of Finance will not be reelected. The civil service and their families plus pensioners are a powerful vote. It’s shocking to suggest changing an employment contract to the detriment of employees. I can agree with him that someone who works for ten years shouldn’t get the same medical retirement package as someone who devotes his whole career to a thankless and not well paid job. Perhaps he wasn’t there to give his sound advice when a recent amending bill guaranteed a pension to a past Speaker. Did that amendment require any specific length of service? How did he vote for the amendment? The public might be interested in hearing how long MLAs have to ‘work’ to get a pension and lifetime free medical.
I think MLA’s have to serve only one term and they get pension, health insurance, etc. if I’m wrong, someone please correct me. We would all be interested to if all MLA’s voted for the amendment referred to. In that case the Speaker never ever served in the LA and was Speaker for one term. Does she receive pension too? based on her salary for that one four year period of service? Nothing personal, but retirees across the island are struggling to live, leave alone access to proper health insurance and therefore health care, while amendments are made for selected people.
Good points at 10.23 am. It’s time to stop blaming civil service benefits and look at the MLA package. At the same time you talk about cutting civil service benefits you pass special legislation for benefits for speakers and MLAs. ??Why not stop paying both pension and salaries to MLAs. Get on as a matter of urgency with legislation to make their pension and medical more like civil servants. No pension until at least 10 years of service, and like the suggestion for the civil service the level of medical should be based on years served. You can find a better way to get money into that pension fund my friend.
How about cutting a deal with Dr. Shetty? Wouldn’t that be a way to cut the ludicrous cost of medical increases? How about getting rid of people who are overpaid for their services? We have too much civil service for a small population. No use hiring 5 people to flip one hamburger, lets get with the Miller-Shaw report and cut civil service.
If there is a “contract” and unless it is specifically stated otherwise, neither party can change it unilaterally. If I have a 5% mortgage, I can’t just walk into the bank and say “I have decided to change it to 3%”.
There should either be open negotiations, or contracts can be changed affecting new and future employees to reflect current realities.
It’s either pay up or move out. Costs gave to be reduced either by bringing civil servants into the real world of paying for their medical coverage , or the alternative which is to lay off staff to reduce costs.
“…..demands for new services….”
We keep hearing this over the years but it isn’t the general public who are demanding ‘new services’ it is civil servants trying to expand their responsibilities by adding more bureaucracy: you only have to look at how much more difficult it is to get anything done that involves a government department than it used to be.
No, it’s the damned politicians demanding new services ti help their voters.
Yes Marco especially when certain government employees who come here along with their unhealthy spouses along with serious medical issues and cant get it all fully paid for and even are sent overseas for treatment. Yes cut them off but i won’t hold my breathe ? Their is a current situation where a certain employee was to retire but was kept on so he could get medical coverage before he departs. These are the people are bleeding the system
It is time to stop blaming civil servants benefits on our country being broke. The fact is we keep giving concessions to rich developers. and by doing so do not collect the funds necessary to run our country. So who then has to pay to make up for this. The Cayman people. it is wrong and needs to stop. The average Caymanian should not have to pay for the savings the rich developers enjoy!
Without concessions to these “rich developers” there would be less development and subsequently less money coming in………..So you propose not to give concessions and stifle development? Where exactly do you propose that potential lost revenue should then come from?
oh dear, a little French frie on your shoulder there. And yes lets blame the CS. Corruption, overspending, unaccounted for spending, gas boy cards etc etc etc..if that were all bought in line there would be plenty of money. But lets see, where does most of the happen…oh yes, the CS…doh!
cig civil service…. overpaid, overstaffed, underworked and incompetent beyond belief.
just read miller shaw and e&y reports.
Start charging this to new civil servants like you should have done 15 years ago. Government has two types of pensioners and they should have done this with health coverage also. It is not fair to civil servants with long service who are anticipating this benefit as part of their remuneration and retirement package to have to now pay. It is a breach of their employment contract. You cannot expect to move the goal posts in the middle of the game. As a civil servant whose employment contract gives me this benefit and who is nearly at retirement age I will fight it all the way.
Contracts can be changed at any point in time, if they require you to sign a new one. The caveat in the governments favour is that if you do not sign the new contract, then your services are no longer required.
Simply not true I’m afraid. You can’t just “let someone go”, except in the circumstances outlined in the PSML being essentially either disciplinary action or redundancy.
Frankly you would struggle to do this in the private sector without being sued. Ever heard of the phrases “wrongful dismissal” and/or “unfair dismissal”? These are common law principles that restrict the circumstances in which an employer can get rid of an employee.
The original commenter is right. Government should change all new employment contracts issued from tomorrow onwards and forget trying to move the goalposts on existing CS’s.
Au Contraire, this was done by the Canadian and UK government Civil Service workers. In the UK everyone had to reapply for their jobs again and sign a new contract as an amendment was made that made this a requirements across the board. For the Canadian civil service workers, they were provided incentive to resign with a package or reapply for their position.
First world countries do this all the time. It is called cost cutting and the Private Sector does do this, it is called making someone redundant if they do not wish to sign a new contract.
Citation please?
Yes the contract can be changed upon MUTUAL AGREEMENT. Failure to have the employee agree may cause the contract to be terminated but it would not be for cause and therefore notice and/or notice pay would be due also severance would be due and payable and possibly unfair dismissal or other civil charges.
There is also down-sizing. Severance package can be max three months salary if you have worked 12 years or more.
Except the politicians aren’t downsizing the civil service. they’re increasing it (for their preferred projects). Which is why they’re trying to find a way to make the civil servants pay in order to keep their jobs so the politicians can say they made everyone happy. Except the people legally not allowed to say anything against government policy.
Scrap the ludicrous defined benefits for existing civil servants and put that money into healthcare. There are many incompetent civil servants just hanging in there for that glorious day when they can continue to collect a high payment while everyone else suffers because pensions are under funded. Cinico is a joke.
And these same “many incompetent civil servants just hanging in there” will be able to keep going for even longer doing nothing when the retirement age is raised. At least with 60 as the mandatory age of retirement we could get rid of all these time wasters as soon as they hit that magic age.