Yes on 26-93

Portland voters have another choice to vote on, beyond Measures 49 and 50 - Measure 26-93, which amends the Police and Fire Disability and Retirement program rules. I'm voting YES on all three measures.

Measure 26-93 fixes an obvious flaw in the Portland Police Officers and Fire Fighters pension and disability program, which is funded on a pay-as-we-go basis by our property taxes (check your bill that arrived last week, to see the line item). Currently, the silly rules are such that if a public safety employee covered by the Fund is injured on the job, s/he can't return to work without losing health insurance coverage for the work-related injury on retirement. But if they don't get back to work as soon as possible, perhaps in an alternate capacity that allows productivity while accommodating the disability, they continue to receive medical coverage for the impairment after they retire. That leads to some staying out on disability until they're eligible for retirement, instead. Measure 26-93 amends that rule to ensure that workers who want to get back to their jobs don't risk losing the injury-related health care coverage at retirement.

I covered the core issue back in April, when the unions took the problem to the Legislature in an effort to get it fixed sooner rather than later. It should have been part of the pension system reforms we voted on two years ago. And since it wasn't, the Council should have put it on this May's ballot with the other Charter reform measures, after the unions highlighted the problem again. Politics as usual interferred. And so we, the taxpayers, have likely been paying for officers staying out on disability instead of returning to work, for years longer than necessary. Better late than never... I recommend Yes on 26-93.

How much will this cost? Why

How much will this cost? Why is no one talking about that?

It has to be a net savings,

It has to be a net savings, surely? Currently, the injured officers have to stay out on disability until retirement, to keep the health care coverage of their job-related injury. I think few doctors would sign off on injuries with a guarantee that no problems with the affected part would ever occur in the future. With this amendment, they can return to work and keep the same health care coverage on requirement, if further injury-related problems develop. So the savings are the difference between paying them to stay home (while paying someone else to do the job), and allowing them to return to work. The Oregonian projected it was going to cost a lot, when their editorial board argued against the same fix in the Legislature. But that was because they compared the cost of paying post-retirement health care for job-related injuries with not paying it. Whereas in fact, that's not the choice. Employees worried about providing for their families would be foolish to return to work and risk losing coverage for their injuries, under the current policy, and instead stay out on disability to keep the medical care available.

Thanks. Let me be more

Thanks. Let me be more specific. The number I am looking for is the cost, not taking the promised benefit into account.

In my post I linked from

In my post I linked from April, I wrote: The O asserts, "It would hike annual medical costs for disabled police and firefighters covered by the Portland Fire and Police Disability and Retirement Fund (PFPDR) from $3 million to an estimated $6 million a year." I then commented at that time: OK, let's take that number as fact. (Really? Doubling the cost of medical care for the entire program? Wow, those officers have some severe medical issues, and it's heroic they want to return to work rather than staying out until retirement). But as I said then, Jack, using that number as a "hike" is flawed. The medical costs are being paid anyway, as currently the public safety officers would stay out on disability until retirement, in order to still get that coverage paid for. What this ballot measure does is save the City money by allowing the officers to return to work, perhaps in a less physically-challenging position, eliminating disability payments and the cost of someone else hired to do the job.

P.S. The number I just gave

P.S. The number I just gave you is from the Oregonian's editorial, and I haven't verified it from an independent or other source.

Heaven forbid they should

Heaven forbid they should put the cost figures in the voters' pamphlet. I think some officers are actually dedicated enough to come back to work under the present system, despite the medical coverage they'll lose. To that extent, this measure does cost money.

I appreciated your post on

I appreciated your post on your blog, Jack, talking about doing what's fair as well as looking at the cost. My colleague at OHSU who found the state disability system a horrendous hassle finally received help and some measure of justice through the Ombudsman in that system. It seems to me we should more often talk about the "right" and fair thing as well as looking at what's most cost-effective.

pay-as-we-go nature of the

pay-as-we-go nature of the job, indeed it would be a natural progression of the laws. i guess the voters have very little choice but to choose the obvious! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- joe mercer| my personal weblog|http://www.anxietycuresreview.com/easy-calm-review/ | New York City