Poll: Most Nevadans oppose benefit cuts for state workers

Associated Press

RENO - Gov. Kenny Guinn on Wednesday challenged a poll that found most Nevadans oppose his plan to eliminate state-subsidized health benefits for future state workers after they retire.

Guinn called the poll on his proposal to reduce health benefits for future state retirees misleading and "therefore not reliable."

"Under my proposal, all new hires will still be guaranteed entrance into the state health plan," Guinn said. "This allows new employees to receive a lower group rate."

"Moreover, the state has been paying Medicare for its employees since 1987 and this will continue for new hires. This ensures their eligibility for Medicare when they retire," he said.

The poll conducted for the Reno Gazette-Journal and KRNV-TV said 54 percent of likely voters statewide disagree with Guinn's proposal. Thirty-eight percent agreed and 8 percent were not sure.

Mark Lundahl, senior editor at the newspaper, said the paper stood by the findings.

"We stand by the question as accurate," Lundahl said. "We've been conducting political polls on an ongoing basis and stand by the results."

The survey of 600 likely voters, conducted Jan. 25 to Jan. 27 by Maryland-based Research 2000, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The state now pays as much as 100 percent of a retired employee's health insurance premium, depending on factors such as length of employment.

Guinn took exception to the wording of the question, which asked respondents to agree or disagree with the statement, "The state should cut retirement health insurance benefits to all newly hired state employees."

The governor said a more detailed question asking if the state should "discontinue subsidizing the premiums for future new hires" when they retire would have been more accurate.

"My proposal simply moves state government in line with a majority of other public and private employers," Guinn said in a written statement. "I believe it is good government to protect the health insurance system for our current retirees and employees.

"I would also be curious to know from the legislators who work in private business how many of them have their health care benefits totally subsidized for every year of their retirement," Guinn continued.

"How many of our taxpayers can expect someone to pay 100 percent of their health insurance premiums after they retire?"

The private sector is cutting retirement health benefits in large numbers. Since 1988, the percentage of large private employers offering such a benefit has dropped from 66 percent to 36 percent, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation and Hewitt Associates.

But state governments, even those facing drastic budget shortfalls, have not been quick to end the benefit. Instead, those states have reduced the state subsidy, shifting more of the cost to the retiree.

The governor estimated the cut would save the state $500 million over 30 years.

But in budget hearing testimony, lawmakers learned that estimate is shaky because it relies on long-term forecasting of many variables.

Scott McKenzie, executive director of the Nevada Employees Association, said the state should consider other cost controls before eliminating retiree benefits.

"Just to whack this group of people because we've got a problem, we think that is a knee-jerk reaction," McKenzie said. "We know it is an expensive group, but at the same time, there are recruitment issues.

"Let's do our homework first."