Print
E-mail
Share
iPod
del.icio.us
digg
Newsvine
FacebookTHE LEGISLATURE:
Rushed law threatens regulation
Late-session fix for Beers’ former company could undo state oversight of health insurers
SUN FILE PHOTO
State Sen. Bob Beers quit his post with Payroll Solutions before the legislative session, but introduced its chief executive to a key lawmaker.
Sun, Oct 5, 2008 (2 a.m.)
Sun Topics
Beyond the Sun
In the final days of the 2007 legislative session, an amendment was slipped into an insurance bill that greatly benefited a company that provides payroll services and administers health benefits for a variety of employers.
Without a committee hearing or public testimony, two Republican senators added the late-hour amendment. The new language allowed the company, Payroll Solutions, and certain other companies to avoid the kind of state oversight, regulation and taxes that apply to health insurers throughout Nevada.
Because of the change, Payroll Solutions avoided a $1 million fine and back taxes for operating as a health insurance provider without a license, a matter still being contested in the courts.
It’s not clear why the Legislature acted as it did, but Payroll Solutions did have a strong ally there. State Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, had been the company’s vice president for sales until the legislative session began in early 2007.
Beers, who’s locked in a tight reelection battle that could determine which party controls the upper chamber, told the Las Vegas Sun last week he resigned from Payroll Solutions before the start of the 2007 Legislature because he knew the company had a legislative agenda, and he didn’t want to compromise his role as senator.
But Beers said he did introduce company Chief Executive Howard Winters to state Sen. Randolph Townsend, the powerful Republican chairman of the Commerce and Labor Committee. Also, Sen. Warren Hardy, another influential player, said Beers asked him to talk to Winters. Hardy and Townsend added the amendment.
Beers told the Sun last week the amendment sought to clarify what had always been true: Federal regulators, not the state, should govern insurance offerings of Payroll Solutions and companies like it.
Hardy told the Sun on Thursday that Payroll Solutions asked for the amendment merely to “close a loophole.”
In fact, it did much more, according to an internal memorandum two deputy attorneys general sent to their boss, Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto. In addition to aiding Payroll Solutions, the new language opened the door to insurance scams across the state, the memo says.
Alice Molasky-Arman, who recently retired as commissioner of the state Insurance Division, sent a letter to Cortez Masto warning that ramifications of the amendment were “potentially disastrous.”
Payroll Solutions is what’s known as an “employee leasing organization.” That means that companies hire Payroll Solutions to take care of their payroll, taxes, benefits administration and the like.
Payroll Solutions also began offering a self-funded health plan in 2001 to the companies for which it performed the other services.
The federal government decided in the early 1980s that it wanted help from the states in regulating this type of arrangement, which is known as a Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangement, or MEWA. The government wanted help because MEWAs are prone to fraud and insolvency.
A Nevada company called Employers Mutual, for instance, went bust this decade. An executive had been skimming money and was later sentenced to prison.
Payroll Solutions, however, has long argued that it’s not a MEWA and thus not subject to state oversight.
The state disagrees. In 2006, it held an administrative hearing that concluded with a $1 million fine against the company and a demand for back taxes.
The company appealed to the courts, setting off a flurry of suits between the parties in state and federal courts.
Payroll Solutions asserts in court filings that it is running a “single-employer plan,” even though it runs the health plan for multiple employers. In other words, the company argues that for the purposes of employee benefits law, all the people who work for all those companies are really employees of Payroll Solutions.
“We feel Nevada revised statutes make it clear we are a single employer, and that we would not be subject to Division of Insurance jurisdiction,” Winters, the company chief executive, said in an interview last week.
The distinction between single- and multiple-employer plans is important because the federal government, not the state of Nevada, regulates self-funded single-employer health insurance plans. Single-employer plans are perceived to be less risky and so require less oversight.
The Bush administration Labor Department, in an advisory opinion, has agreed with Nevada that Payroll Solutions is a multiple-employer plan, subject to state regulation.
In addition to appealing the state’s decision, Payroll Solutions filed a lawsuit rebuking then-Insurance Commissioner Molasky-Arman, naming the division and her personally, accusing her of defamation, abuse of authority and violation of civil rights.
Molasky-Arman, the suit alleged, had used federal law to determine Payroll Solutions’ status, which constituted abuse of authority.
Timothy Menifield, the company’s chief financial officer, said he thought it was possible competitors had lobbied the Insurance Division to move against Payroll Solutions, but said he didn’t want to speculate. He noted the company had been offering its coverage since 2001, but the Insurance Division didn’t act until 2006.
As the case made its way in court, Payroll Solutions decided it wasn’t going to take any chances.
It turned to the Legislature.
Townsend, who apparently met Winters through Beers, has worked closely with Molasky-Arman for a long time, he said in an interview last week.
The amendment he inserted was added, oddly, to a section of law that deals mostly with workers’ compensation, not health insurance. Though Townsend held extensive hearings on the overall legislation, he never took testimony on the amendment.
The principals say they don’t remember much about how the amendment became law, which is understandable given the flurry of activity surrounding the end of the biannual 120-day session.
Hardy said Beers asked him to talk to Winters because Beers told him he wasn’t comfortable moving legislation for his former employer. Hardy said he was under the impression the amendment was “cleanup,” shorthand for laws passed that clarify old laws. He said Winters told him the amendment fixed “a loophole” that prevented him from operating.
Hardy said he doesn’t recall any objections from the Insurance Division.
“That would have raised some red flags,” he said, before adding that he can foresee the issue being revisited during the 2009 session. “If we inadvertently opened a loophole, let’s close it.”
(Hardy is president of the Associated Builders and Contractors, which uses Payroll Solutions for its services, but he said his staff ultimately made the decision about which company to use. As a vendor, Payroll Solutions was required to become a member of Associated Builders and Contractors, like its other vendors. Neither Payroll Solutions nor its executives have given campaign donations to Beers, Hardy or Townsend.)
Townsend said the amendment was a way to help the division during a time of limited resources by reducing the number of insurance companies it has to regulate.
Beers said the law eliminated duplication: “The practice in question refers to whether or not there’s going to be a duplicate set of regulations on the health plan under the law. Under (the federal law) it’s regulated under the feds. The state decided it wanted to regulate it, too.”
The federal government disagrees. The Labor Department said in a second advisory opinion that the amendment was an illegal attempt to preempt federal law, while again stating Payroll Solutions is a MEWA subject to state regulation.
Still, Beers accused the division of regulatory overreach: “The division of insurance is in great flux. Payroll Solutions is not the first time the division had stepped into areas of regulation that it didn’t have authority to regulate,” citing recent settlements agreed to by the division.
State officials tell another story, however, according to the documents obtained by the Sun from a third party.
The amendment was added “surreptitiously” and “most probably passed without full knowledge of the facts or implications ...,” said the internal memorandum from deputy attorneys general Shane Chesney and Joanna Grigoriev to Attorney General Cortez Masto.
(The Attorney General’s office declined to comment, citing attorney-client privilege. Chesney, Grigoriev and Molasky-Arman all declined to comment for this story.)
State officials are concerned the new law will have fly-by-night companies seeking the new classification and avoiding regulation by the state insurance commissioner. They’re also concerned that conventional insurance companies, which have to pay premium taxes and comply with state regulations, would be at a competitive disadvantage and would also seek the new classification.
Indeed, conventional health insurance companies have begun asking regulators how they can achieve this status outside the purview of state regulators, according to the documents.
If that happens, the Nevada insurance market would be transformed, the lawyers argue.
The memo from Chesney and Grigoriev to Cortez Masto warns that the new law could allow companies to operate unmoored from state insurance rules that, for instance, mandate coverage of cancer screenings and require companies to contribute to a fund that would pay claims if they go broke.
Moreover, Nevada collects roughly $250 million in insurance premium taxes every year, which would be slashed if insurance companies escape Nevada’s purview.
The Chesney-Grigoriev memo describes the history of the law, which, they argue, was “precisely the opposite” of the Payroll Solutions argument. The new legislation “accomplished a change in the law which essentially strengthened and codified this legal argument in the pending” litigation, they wrote.
If Payroll Solutions’ legal argument holds up in court, the implications could be profound, Molasky-Arman wrote in her to letter Cortez Masto. Nevada will become a haven for shady operators, while drawing conventional insurance companies that will register as employee leasing companies like Payroll Solutions and thus avoid state oversight, she wrote.
The amendment “will devastate the health insurance market” and “destroy Nevada’s reputation as a strong, fair regulatory environment,” the letter said.
Winters said this is a gross exaggeration, asserting that entering the employee leasing business is not easy or without its own compliance issues.
An insurance industry insider, granted anonymity to speak freely about the case, said insurers are eagerly awaiting the results of the litigation to see whether they too can also become largely unregulated insurance providers.
Sun researcher Rebecca Clifford contributed to this report.
Discussion: 17 comments so far…
Post a comment
- Most Read
- Discussed
- Most E-mailed
- Mob museum is Exhibit A for GOP leader
- The latest trend: Leaving Las Vegas
- Older workers ‘bumping’ young down jobs ladder
- Four arrested after two kidnapping victims rescued
- 217 bills already drafted for first day of Legislature
- Basic High students return to classes, subdued, after teacher’s slaying
- Anticipating the excitement that Kyle Busch can provide
- Kruger: Rebels must ‘raise the bar’ after conference opener
- MGM Mirage cancels CityCenter condo project
- The Chargers kept me home
Blogs
Wranglers Roundup
Two more added to All Star roster
Culture and Entertainment
CES, porn expo sharing the Vegas stage
Sports: UNLV
Cruz leaving Rebels soccer team for Major League Soccer (UPDATED)
UNLV running backs coach Pope leaving for Iowa State (1 Comment)
High School Sports Scene
High School Heisman winner earns key to city
Politics: The Early Line
Reid, Ensign 'soul mates'? (2 Comments)
Bloggity, Bloggity, Bloggity
Rough economy produces silence at Daytona (2 Comments)
Now and Then
No carpool lane for the Andrettis
Calendar
Disney's High School Musical: The Ice Tour at The Orleans Arena
(7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Orleans Hotel-Casino)
- In A Fect at Roxy's at Sam's Town (8 p.m. to 10 p.m.)
- Don McMillian at the Harrah's Improv (10:30 p.m. to 11:59 p.m.)
- Hokes Medical Arts at the Reed Whipple Cultural Center (10 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
- On Being Good at Reed Whipple Cultural Center (11 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
-
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.
OMG...throw the bums out!
Excellent article.
On additional point: Beers claims that he resigned from Payroll Solutions before the start of the 2007 legislative session. Is there any independent verification of that? Or did the reporter just take Beers' word for it? Just curious. And suspicious.
Did Beers' collect any consulting fees after his resignation? I am sick of career politicians claiming to be on the up and up yet, never have full disclosure of their financial endeavors.
Townsend is a slick operator. He and his over the top hand tailored suits....he acts like a car salesman, oh that's right HE IS a car salesman in $2,ooo dollar suits.
To bad he represents northern Nevada (even though he lives in Las Vegas) because we would throw the slick slimy pos out of office.
Kowtows to big money, never met a lobbyist whose money was not good for Nevada.
You simply can not believe a word Beers says. He and Hardy belong in prison. As if Nevada does not have enough problems now the complete heath insurance industry is compromised and the citizens of Nevada will pay and suffer. Beers and his little "I won't do it directly but I know someone who will" plan fools no one, and lets not forget his coherts. Beers, isn't he one of those I'll tell you how to live a good life hypocrites? Do you want to bet if he looses this election who his employer will be?
Darkhorse ... You mean like Copening getting a contract from a quasi-government agency after she quit the same agency? It amazes how people doubt reporters only when it does not serve their interest.
More to the point ... what I don't understand is if this bill gave small businesses the opportunity to provide better benefits to employees, where is the problem? Aren't all legislators all supposed to be supporting more benefits for working families?
I'm willing to bet that this bill's detractors are not business owners. It's cost-prohibitive for many small businesses to offer their employees health insurance coverage, and for those that do there are very few options. I think any legislation that makes it easier for more people to have access to affordable health care (i.e. a small business making it available to employees) is a good thing.
It's also telling that the first "concerns" about this legislation are being put forth now, just weeks before the election. Why doesn't that surprise me? It's just another political game by the Dems.
Speaking of Dems, Allison Copening's big bright idea is to create an "insurance clearing house" Web site that would be run by the government and cost small businesses money. In essence, her big idea would create more government bureaucracy and cost businesses more money to support. And it would compete with services already being offered by insurance brokers in the private sector, services offered to businesses for FREE.
I don't want the government telling me where or how I can choose my health care. And I sure don't want an IQ-challenged opportunist like Copening telling me.
Franklin, let me ask you something. Do you expect police departments to make a profit or provide a service? Do you expect fire departments to make a profit or provide a service? Yes, we want them to be efficient, of course. But if your answer to either is, make a profit, I hope you are never in need of either. If you answer to these is, provide a service, then WHY do we think it is SO important for the health care industry to do whatever it pleases?
In answer to the last point, while I don't agree with your view of Ms. Copening, I will take her over a bigoted liar any day of the week.
This should be posted in a dictionary as the definition of legislative abuse.
Michael,
Are you seriously suggesting the socialization of health care?
Rich
Beers and Hardy are reprehensible. But the real sleaze is Townsend! Vote out Beers and Townsend will not have a lock on the Commerce and Labor Committee.
Enough is enough Townsend has been doing midnight deals for a decade and we need to vote him out of the Chairman job he holds court over.
Vote out Beers and get rid of Townsend; two birds with one stone. Southern Nevada join me to shake up the power hold northern Nevada has on our future!!!
Rich, if I thought it had a better chance of happening than a snowball in Hades, yes (I feel that I can say that since I'm never running for office!). But I'm a realist. It won't happen.
However, I never cease to be amazed at those who think we should not regulate the living daylights out of everyone and everything involved in health care nationally and locally. If you disagree, that's fine, because, like Sarah Palin, gosh darn it, I love the First Amendment (actually, I don't think she does, but I had to get that in). But I do hope you didn't get a colonoscopy from the offices of Dr. Desai.
technically the licensing requirement restricts Nevadans from buying insurance policies in other states or transporting their policy to Nevada if they move here. That law should be done away with completely to help reduce insurance costs in Nevada.
More importantly we need to push for Health Savings Accounts to end this stupid 3rd party payer system which is driving up prices so fast.
Michael,
No, my stepfather did, and several friends. But is it sad that you bring that up since Desai had his biggest customer was UMC. Glad to see you are sympathetic to the issue as well.
My grandfather, btw, would still be alive today if not for being mistreated at a VA hospital ... the closest thing we have to socialized medicine right now. So no, I guess I'm no so comfortable with the government telling doctors what they can and cannot do for their patients. We already have too many insurance companies attempting to do that, which is why KDR is on the right track.
I also have no idea what you brought up Palin as I'm undecided in the presidential election. So if your plight is diatribe, then you stand a greater chance driving me away from your presidential candidate than toward him.
Rich
The only thing the article leaves out is that Beers isn't really an insurance company. It handles accounts for employers and employees and in no way collects premiums in exchange for paying claims. This was an error in state law enacted by insurance companies that don't like these services provided.
Rich, we share a displeasure with doctors who forget the hippocratic oath. I also would say that I don't like the government telling doctors what to do--but I do not like it when insurance companies do the same, and my family and I unfortunately have been victims of the same kind of mistreatment that has unfortunately afflicted your family. I am sorry to hear that about your grandfather.
As to a "diatribe," Rich, if something I say makes you decide who to vote for, that is one thing. But I mean no disrespect to you when I say that your comment brings to mind the House Republicans who just couldn't vote for the bailout because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings. If "diatribes" decided who we vote for, we wouldn't end up voting for ANYONE! However you vote, I hope you will decide according to who you think are the better candidates for the country and who you find to be closest to your views.
Mike there is nothing wrong with a privatized fire service, its not that ancient of a concept. One of the last private fire companies closed its doors in the early 2000s in Scottsdale Arizona.
The city awarded a contract for every so many years to private companies to run the fire departments.
They closed their doors after years of pressure from fire unions who wanted a permanent no bid contract for themselves...if you will.
Following the end of the private fire company spending on the fire department ramped of really fast as the fire department became just another government bureaucracy.
I honestly think we should go a step further and fully privatize fire departments. If you don't pay for the service you don't get protection, unless you pay a fee last minute and let me tell you it would be expensive.
Needless to say (or yes I probably do have to say it) you'd probably get a hefty break on homeowners insurance if you paid for fire service, so it wouldn't be a big problem at all.
A private police force might not be a bad idea either. Think about all the home robberies and what not that could be addressed instead of focusing cops on the politicians favorite areas of town.