The Public Employees Insurance Agency's proposed premium increase will dramatically diminish the quality of life and health care of West Virginia teachers and school service personnel. In turn, this will impact our ability to provide high-quality instruction and services to our schools, colleges and universities.

The proposal seeks $15 million in premium increases. However, at the end of the first year of the proposed plan, the reserve fund will be $20 million more than what is required by law, more than enough to offset the increase in premiums. We therefore request that PEIA use $15 million of the reserve fund and rescind the premium increase for both active members and retirees.

Second, the plan seeks an increase in co-payments for those seeking medical treatment outside of West Virginia. While on paper this proposal might seem harmless, it is a Trojan horse, as this proposal would significantly reduce benefits for over 50 percent of our population.

This is bad public policy. A large segment of the insured live in areas of the state where there are few options but to go out-of-state. For example, it has been standard practice for those who live in the Eastern Panhandle to go to Winchester, Va., for medical care. There are no other viable options for them - unless "viable" is defined as driving 2 1/2 to three hours to receive in-state medical care.

Is it good policy to ask a teacher in Hancock County who just had a stroke to drive two hours to Morgantown rather than a short drive to Pittsburgh? The plan will penalize employees simply because they live in border counties and place our employees and retirees in harm's way. PEIA shouldn't do this. Rather, it should do a better job of negotiating with out-of-state providers.

PEIA's efforts to reduce benefits for those who live in our border counties come at a time when we are working with local governments to provide incentives to attract and retain education personnel. The proposal will deflate our efforts and make the environs of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio that much more inviting. Only those who plan recruiting fairs in the contiguous states probably are happy with the proposal.

PEIA's plan to increase out-of-pocket maximums is regressive by definition. It forces our lower-salaried employees to pay a greater proportion of their income than those who earn more. The less you make, the greater your share of the increase will be. Consider the following. A school cook with an annual salary of $20,000 will have an out-of-pocket maximum increase equal to 2 percent of her salary. A central office administrator will have an increase of less than 1 percent. How is this fair? This regressive proposal should be withdrawn.

Finally, and let me very clear and unambiguous; retirees simply can't afford an 11 percent jump in their premiums and the other increases in the proposed plan. Where is the logic in this proposal? How can it justify such a large increase in premiums for those on fixed incomes? Given that they do not receive a cost-of-living adjustment (nor have they had a measurable bump in their incomes), how are they supposed to pay for an 11 percent increase and increased co-payments? They will truly be faced with Hobson's choice - basic necessities or medical care.

We believe that health care is not just another commodity. It is not a gift to be rationed based on the ability to pay. Rather, it is a fundamental right. The PEIA proposal harms the poorest and sickest among us. We have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the purpose and mission of insurance. As president of AFT-WV, I ask PEIA to return to the drawing board and reconsider these proposals.

Hale, state president of the

American Federation of Teachers,

made these comments at a November PEIA public hearing.

The Public Employees Insurance Agency's proposed premium increase will dramatically diminish the quality of life and health care of West Virginia teachers and school service personnel. In turn, this will impact our ability to provide high-quality instruction and services to our schools, colleges and universities.

The proposal seeks $15 million in premium increases. However, at the end of the first year of the proposed plan, the reserve fund will be $20 million more than what is required by law, more than enough to offset the increase in premiums. We therefore request that PEIA use $15 million of the reserve fund and rescind the premium increase for both active members and retirees.

Second, the plan seeks an increase in co-payments for those seeking medical treatment outside of West Virginia. While on paper this proposal might seem harmless, it is a Trojan horse, as this proposal would significantly reduce benefits for over 50 percent of our population.

This is bad public policy. A large segment of the insured live in areas of the state where there are few options but to go out-of-state. For example, it has been standard practice for those who live in the Eastern Panhandle to go to Winchester, Va., for medical care. There are no other viable options for them - unless "viable" is defined as driving 2 1/2 to three hours to receive in-state medical care.

Is it good policy to ask a teacher in Hancock County who just had a stroke to drive two hours to Morgantown rather than a short drive to Pittsburgh? The plan will penalize employees simply because they live in border counties and place our employees and retirees in harm's way. PEIA shouldn't do this. Rather, it should do a better job of negotiating with out-of-state providers.

PEIA's efforts to reduce benefits for those who live in our border counties come at a time when we are working with local governments to provide incentives to attract and retain education personnel. The proposal will deflate our efforts and make the environs of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio that much more inviting. Only those who plan recruiting fairs in the contiguous states probably are happy with the proposal.

PEIA's plan to increase out-of-pocket maximums is regressive by definition. It forces our lower-salaried employees to pay a greater proportion of their income than those who earn more. The less you make, the greater your share of the increase will be. Consider the following. A school cook with an annual salary of $20,000 will have an out-of-pocket maximum increase equal to 2 percent of her salary. A central office administrator will have an increase of less than 1 percent. How is this fair? This regressive proposal should be withdrawn.

Finally, and let me very clear and unambiguous; retirees simply can't afford an 11 percent jump in their premiums and the other increases in the proposed plan. Where is the logic in this proposal? How can it justify such a large increase in premiums for those on fixed incomes? Given that they do not receive a cost-of-living adjustment (nor have they had a measurable bump in their incomes), how are they supposed to pay for an 11 percent increase and increased co-payments? They will truly be faced with Hobson's choice - basic necessities or medical care.

We believe that health care is not just another commodity. It is not a gift to be rationed based on the ability to pay. Rather, it is a fundamental right. The PEIA proposal harms the poorest and sickest among us. We have a fundamental difference of opinion as to the purpose and mission of insurance. As president of AFT-WV, I ask PEIA to return to the drawing board and reconsider these proposals.

Hale, state president of the

American Federation of Teachers,

made these comments at a November PEIA public hearing.