Musings From The Edge: State Health Insurance Fund Join Forces With Alabama Republicans
Read Time:4 Minute, 15 Second
I guess it was just a matter of time before the links between the Alabama Republicans and the health insurance industry became blatantly obvious to disenfranchise state employees even though it is in violation of state law. Of course this is the same state in which its governor and legislature proudly proclaim that they have passed the toughest anti immigration law in country in the face of certain and numerous law suits. Alabama is one of a number of states which, by law, recognizes common law marriages. This has been the law for well over a century and a half and as of 1991 need no formal filing of paper work with the State of Alabama by virtue of an opinion by then State Attorney General Jimmy Evans. Despite this standing the health insurance providers for the Alabama Retirement Fund and the Teachers Retirement Trust Fund have decided that they no longer wanted to follow state law.
Earlier this year the Public Education Employees Health Insurance Program (PEEHIP) of Alabama, in a cost containment move had an auditing company verify the status of all persons claiming common law marriage status for the purpose of covering their dependents under their insurance programs. This was necessary, according to their literature, for continuing health care coverage. This audit, according to an article in the Tuscaloosa, Alabama News, uncovered large amounts of fraudulent claims:
MONTGOMERY | The boards that oversee health insurance coverage for state, public education and local government employees are clearing their rolls of hundreds of ineligible former spouses who received as much as $4 million in undeserved medical benefits.
Additionally, the article continued:
Jim Bradford, the SEIB’s general counsel, said 175 to 180 former spouses out of about 100,000 covered state employees and dependents were deemed ineligible for coverage. “We consider it fraudulent behavior,” he said.
It’s a relatively small number, but about $2 million was paid out for their medical bills
While this would have seemed to have cleared the rolls of the fraudulent claims, and the issue of common law dependents, they carried it a step farther. In June of this year PEEHIP issued new rules for the coverage beginning October 1, 2011 The new terms of coverage are to be:
An eligible dependent is defined as:
1. The employee’s spouse as defined by
Alabama law to whom you are currently
and legally married. (Excludes a divorced
and common law spouse.)“
Emphasis Added
This, in effect, is a state retirement fund using state monies, contributed by the state and state education employees which is instituting a rule that is in direct contradiction to state law. Since state law says that the State of Alabama recognizes Common Law Marriages (as defined by state requirements) how can an arm of the state, i.e., one of its retirement funds, refuse to recognize that state law when administering the retirement benefits of its retirees. Well, it may come down to another court decision. Yes, another decision because the Alabama Supreme Court, at the request of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has already ruled on this issue once. In another case where Aetna Insurance company tried to deny a Mobile, Alabama longshoreman’s wife insurance coverage because of their common law marriage status the court stated:
“We conclude that contractual provisions denying common-law marriages the same status as ceremonially solemnized marriages are void as violative of the public policy of this State.”
Scott v. Board of Trustees, 859 F.2d 872, 873 (11th Cir. Ala. 1988) In other words, while an insurance company might be able to alter some contractual provisions of an insurance policy but it cannot alter public policy. To answer the question of what is public policy the court further stated:
“The term ‘public policy’ of a State is nothing more or less than the law of the State, as found in its constitution and statutes and when they have not directly spoken, then in the decisions of the courts and in the regular practice of government officials. “When the legislature of a state has acted on a subject within constitutional authority, public policy is what the statute enacted says or indicates.”
Scott v. Board of Trustees
So, has the Republican machine in the State of Alabama stepped too far in its quest to walk all over the working people of Alabama or will the courts hold them to what is right. Alabama has an all Republican Supreme Court now so who knows, but there are thousands of education employees who are going to be effected by this and many will not know about until it is too late. All of this has been carried out by standard mail without any red flag warnings on the envelops. No, “IMPORTANT”, “TIME SENSITIVE” warnings on any of the materials. Some of it sent out on postcards similar to “Florida Give Aways” that many of us just trash. October 1 will arrive and go and some folks will not know a thing until it is too late. Hopefully some may read this.
Public Education Employees Health Insurance Program
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
There will be a backlash Lazer, the creation of a fearsome underclass. What a scary thought. That eventuality is what all governments should strive to avoid.
I really hope that there will be Holte. In this case there are several attorneys lined up to take this back to court if necessary to change this.
How can they do this? Isn’t this against some law or something? Are these Republicans trying to take over the whole fucking world?
Jenny, a couple of friends of mine have been doing the research on this and found this case. Though it is a 1988 case it has not been overturned so I am hoping that anyone caught in this net will read this. PEEHIP has kept this pretty much under wraps so far and this is a pretty isolated case. I am assuming that PEEHIP knows of this case and once they know that everyone else knows they may back off.