Questions remain on domestic partner plan

CARSON CITY -- A panel of lawmakers said Monday they want more questions answered before voting on a proposal to provide state health insurance to the domestic partners of employees, both same sex and opposite sex.

A regulation establishing such a policy was before the Legislative Commission for action, forwarded by the state Public Employees Benefits Program board. If approved it could take effect July 1, 2009.

Rather than reject or adopt the proposal, however, lawmakers wanted to hear about alternatives to the plan submitted by the health plan board.

The regulation, which would cost an estimated $2.7 million a year from the state to implement in its current form, will be brought back to a future meeting.

Some lawmakers expressed opposition to the proposal for a variety of reasons.

Sen. Warren Hardy, R-Las Vegas, said he could not support the regulation because the issue more properly belongs in the Legislature.

"I think this is a fairly significant policy decision to be made at the regulatory level," he said.

Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas, said he would prefer to see a regulation that eliminated the need to mention sexual orientation at all. By being more generic, an employee could provide health care coverage to a dependent without any reference to what the relationship to that individual is, he said.

Jim Richardson, representing the Nevada Faculty Alliance, said some states have adopted just such a policy, allowing employees to cover one dependent, whether it be an elderly parent or some other resident of the household, he said.

But those policies cost more to implement, and the health plan board did look at the cost of such a benefit before supporting the less expensive option of domestic partners, he said.

Leslie Johnstone, executive officer of the state Public Employees Benefits Program, said staff will try to develop a figure for the cost of the expanded policy favored by Lee to bring back to the commission.

But actuaries are reluctant to make such estimates because they do not know who the dependent will be, she said. An elderly parent might cost the plan more in health care costs than a domestic partner, Johnstone said.

The regulation up for adoption does not include funding. Gov. Jim Gibbons and the Legislature would have to find funding if they wanted to provide the same state subsidy for health care coverage to this group as is now provided to state employees, spouses and their families.

Gibbons has not weighed in on the policy. But he said through a spokesman he will not include funding for the benefit in his 2009-11 budget because of the cost.

If the regulation is adopted and no funding is provided, it could allow employees with domestic partners to cover the entire cost of the state health care coverage out of their own pockets.

But Johnstone warned that allowing such a practice could have financial impacts to the self-funded plan. Those who pay the relatively high cost to obtain coverage are more likely than others to have health issues and use the plan benefits, she said.

The original request to include domestic partners in the state health plan came from the Nevada System of Higher Education. University and college presidents told the board last year that extending benefits to partners is essential to their ability to recruit top professors and administrators.