The Executive Board of the Washington State Labor Council has voted to endorse Initiative 790, a pension reform measure for police and fire fighters, that is now in the signature gathering phase. Some 198,000 valid signatures must be collected by July 5 to put I-790 on November's ballot.

Today, Washington is one of only four states where local police and fire fighters lack any representation on their own pension board. Instead, the statewide Law Enforcement Officers and Fire Fighters Retirement System 2 (LEOFF 2) is run by a committee made up entirely of legislators, even though local police and fire fighters contribute half the cost of their pensions.

Initiative 790 would change that. It would guarantee our public safety workers representation on a new governing board, giving them a voice in their own retirement without cost to taxpayers. It creates a new Board of Trustees, appointed by the Governor and legislative leaders, to manage the LEOFF 2 police and fire fighter retirement system. The new board would consist of three police representatives, three fire fighter representatives, three local government representatives and two legislators.

I-790 also contains strong safeguards to protect the public and tax dollars: Trustee decisions must be made in public and reported to the Governor, Legislature and State Actuary, subject to judicial review and strict accounting and actuarial standards; day-to-day management will remain with the Department of Retirement Systems; all contributions are capped; and future benefit increases can be rejected by the Legislature.

If I-790 qualifies for the ballot, there is every reason to believe it will pass -- easily.  

Results of a recent statewide opinion poll of likely November 2002 voters reveal overwhelming support for legislation guaranteeing police and fire fighters a voice in protecting their own pension plan. Major findings of the survey include:

— 93 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of police officers, exceeded only by fire fighters with a 98-percent favorable rating.

— 86 percent believe it’s wrong that police and fire fighters have no say in running their pension plan, though they pay half of total costs.

— 79 percent are persuaded in favor of giving public safety workers a voice in running their own pensions without increased costs to taxpayers.

— 74 percent would vote to approve an initiative giving fire fighters and police majority control over their pension funds to safeguard their retirement benefits; only 17 would vote to reject such an initiative while 9 percent are undecided.

“With the collapse of Enron, we certainly see the need for such a voice in our pension system," said Kelly L. Fox, president of the Washington State Council of Fire Fighters. "Fire fighters and police officers shouldn’t have to report for duty worrying about the status of our pension fund. We want a voice so we can safeguard what’s ours. I’m glad that voters strongly agree it’s the right thing to do.”

For more information about I-790 or to find out how you can volunteer to collect signatures, visit www.i-790.org.

Following are the remarks of Washington State Labor Council President Rick Bender at Wednesday afternoon's commemoration of Worker Memorial Day at the state Department of Labor and Industries headquarters in Tumwater (also see details on other remembrances planned this weekend):

Just in case you weren't able to attend the town hall meeting in Bellevue this morning with Thomas Scully, the Bush Administration's director of Medicare and Medicaid, feel free to contact him directly via e-mail at TScully@cms.hhs.gov about plans to further slash Medicaid reimbursement to states that could cost our state some $200 million, exacerbating our serious state budget problems.

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) did.  Here is her letter to Scully:

April 19, 2002

Mr. Thomas A. Scully
Administrator
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC  20201

Dear Administrator Scully:

I am pleased to learn of your visit Monday to the state of Washington.  I find there is no better way to see how government policies affect people's lives than to actually visit with constituents.  This will also enable you to learn first-hand about some of the health care challenges facing many Washington state residents.

In advance of your arrival, I would like to take this opportunity to share a few of the health care concerns of many of my constituents.

MEDICAID UPPER PAYMENT LIMIT (ProShare):

The economic recession has been especially tough on Washington State, which has the second highest unemployment rate in the nation.  As more men and women lose their jobs, they depend on Medicaid to provide health care for themselves and their children.  The recession has also severely hindered Washington State's ability to provide one of the most comprehensive Medicaid programs in the country.

Current Medicaid practices enable the federal government to reimburse states for up to 150% of their Medicaid expenses, known as the "Upper Payment Limit."  For states like Washington, this funding is essential to providing health care to a vulnerable population.

In 2000, the previous administration recognized that some states were manipulating the Upper Payment Limit and implemented a phase-out of these additional payments.  Though not perfect, states had time to adjust to the reduced federal payments.

But the Bush Administration has decided to eliminate additional Medicaid payments immediately.  This will result in a crippling, $200 million cut to Washington State.

I have co-sponsored amendments to reverse the Administration's Medicaid cuts, because I believe that a national recession is the wrong time to be eliminating the health care coverage of vulnerable populations.

MEDICARE REGIONAL INEQUITY FOR PHYSICIAN PAYMENTS:

Another important issue is the regional inequity in physician payments under Medicare.  Washington State is ranked 45th out of the 50 states in per-beneficiary reimbursements.  A doctor in Florida, for example, can get nearly twice as much money from Medicare as a doctor in Washington State for seeing the same patient with the same ailments.

As a result of this inherent inequity -- and the recent 5.4% reduction for physicians nationwide -- some doctors in Washington State are no longer accepting new Medicare patients.  The regional inequity also hurts Washington hospitals, which will not be able to attract health care professionals since other states are able to pay them more.

Many of us in Congress are working on legislative remedies to address these inequities, and I hope that the Administration will support efforts to increase physician reimbursement rates so that seniors in Washington State -- and other states -- can continue to get good health care.

MEDICARE PROVIDER PAYMENTS:

The recent 5.4% cut in physician payments is causing doctors to flee the Medicare program, and is hurting seniors who may have trouble finding a doctor who will accept new Medicare patients.  Yet the Administration's Medicare budget provides no additional funding for health care providers.

In fact, the only increase in Medicare funding in the President's budget goes to insurance companies and Medicare HMOs.  As you know, only a small fraction of seniors are enrolled in a Medicare HMO and thus the vast majority of seniors will see no benefit from your budget.  This is a problem.

The Senate Budget Committee, on the other hand, did include additional resources for Medicare providers, including hospitals, doctors and home health care agencies.  I hope that you carefully review the Senate budget proposal, which also provides funding for prescription drug coverage.

Again, I am pleased that you will visit the 8th congressional district on Monday and I would like to invite you to come back at a future date to visit other parts of the state where the health care needs are even more desperate -- perhaps a low-income or rural area.

Thank you for taking the time to hear these important concerns.  I hope that your visit to Washington will illustrate the extraordinary impacts that your policies will have on many vulnerable populations.

Sincerely,
Patty Murray, United States Senator