PEBP board hears Siegel analysis showing large reserve gap; members call for phased fixes rather than one‑year 84% premium hike
Loading...
Summary
Actuarial slides presented a projected shortfall for plan year 2027 that, if closed in one year, would require an illustrative 84% uniform employee premium increase. Board members, public commenters and the actuary agreed a phased approach combining modest plan‑design tweaks and staged revenue changes is preferable; a Feb. 18 meeting was scheduled to refine options.
The Public Employees Benefits Program Board on Jan. 20 reviewed an actuarial trend analysis from Siegel that showed a widening gap between the program’s funding target and projected assets, prompting a unanimous call among board members and public commentators to pursue a phased solution rather than a single, disruptive premium hike.
Siegel principal Richard Ward told the board the funding target (the sum of incurred‑but‑not‑reported liability and a catastrophic reserve defined as 45 days of claims) should be treated as a target range rather than a fixed point. Using plan‑year '26 claims and the board’s current reserve methodology, Ward said a reasonable target range would be roughly 20–30% of annual claims (about $100 million–$150 million). By contrast, Siegel’s slide comparing the funding target (about $139 million) with projected assets (about $57 million) produced an $82 million shortfall for plan year '27. Ward emphasized the slide was illustrative and not a recommendation; it showed that closing that entire gap in one year with a uniform employee premium increase would equate to roughly an 84% raise in premiums.
“That's simply illustrative to show the magnitude of the gap,” Ward said. He explained the projection assumed no further changes to state per‑employee funding (AEGIS/RGGI), no additional employer contributions beyond the biennial allocation, and no other plan‑design changes beyond those already approved.
Public commenters and several board members said an immediate, uniform 84% increase would be catastrophic for employees. Doug Unger, a past UNLV chapter president of the Nevada Faculty Alliance, urged the board not to compound short public notice with a single‑year shock to employees: “It would be a burdensome financial shock for state employees, especially those with acute medical issues or chronic illnesses,” he said, asking the board to postpone action on the proposal and seek multi‑year alternatives.
Kent Ervin of the Nevada Faculty Alliance and other speakers similarly called for greater transparency on how the mispricing and reserve decline occurred and for legislative engagement. “There needs to be options at a lower level for FY 2027 than a one‑year fix,” Ervin said during public comment.
Board members pressed staff and Siegel on the drivers of the shortfall: a prior deliberate spend‑down of excess reserves to fund benefits enhancements (about $33 million allocated in past years), migration of members from the consumer‑directed health plan (CDHP) into a new low‑deductible PPO (creating cross‑subsidies because state funding is fixed per capita), and accelerating pharmacy cost trends that have outpaced rebates in the most recent year.
Several members advocated a multi‑pronged, staged approach. Laura Rich said smaller, regular adjustments help avoid “yo‑yo” swings in benefits that surprise employees; Theresa Carson stressed the board’s fiduciary duty and said the board must have “a plan” even if imperfect. Board members repeatedly requested Siegel model 2– and 3‑year phased scenarios showing combinations of (a) modest premium increases, (b) limited plan‑design changes to copays/deductibles, (c) migration incentives to rebalance enrollment, and (d) potential state contribution paths to close the gap over time.
The board discussed specific levers Siegel presented: modest increases to co‑pays and deductibles, changes to subsidization (so employer subsidy aligns more with plan cost), and disease‑management or utilization‑management programs as cost‑avoidance options. Siegel noted that because the CDHP often has lower actuarial cost for high utilizers or those who hit out‑of‑pocket maximums, changes to plan design or premiums would require careful modeling of migration effects.
To continue work on those scenarios, the board agreed to convene a follow‑up meeting. After a motion and discussion about calendars, the board set a special meeting for Feb. 18 at 1 p.m. to consider potential plan‑design tweaks (particularly copay changes for the low‑deductible PPO) and to review preliminary rate projections that show how design changes would interact with premiums.
The board’s next steps: Siegel and staff will deliver phased projection scenarios and preliminary preliminary rates (including combinations of co‑pay/deductible adjustments and multi‑year premium schedules) for board review at the February meeting. Board members and public speakers emphasized they want options that spread the fiscal fix over several years to reduce volatility and financial harm to employees and retirees.
The board closed the discussion by reiterating the need for clear revenue projections as well as expense‑trend sensitivity testing, particularly around pharmacy trends and plan migration.
