view the policy once a year. i am thrilled they're on the balance sheet. before me they were not on the balance sheet. they have consistently have been and kudos to the ceo and director dodd for this and this is great and i wanted to share the amounts and the auditor has already approved this. >> questions. commissioner lim. >> [inaudible] based on the dates or the study? >> the document that we presented and we look at the various enclaves and study on that and keep what we think is the right amount of money at 99% confidence interval so if it exceeded that we wouldn't have ultimate funds but 99% of the statistically modeled% -- the 99% confidence interval this is the amount of money that the program says it should have so

you're comfortably reserved. >> this is based on prior year's experience. >> yes and we forecast it forward and apply the statistical tool kit and come up with a number. >> based on the last three years? >> 36 months, yes, three years. >> any other questions from members of the board? on these items they're list listed as discussion items and i know public comment should come after each one of them. i have elected at least at this stage to ask the public comment be slightly defer because these items are existing policies and come back for full public comment. this data will be updated in the june period, so if there is any public comment at this point on this discussion item i would invite it or the prior one. hearing none we will proceed. >> item 7 discussion item. review of city plans rates

stabilization reserve. aon hewitt. >> all right. you have before you standard of presentation of how the year's experience in 2014 whether you generated a surplus or deficit and whether or not based on policy the three year amortization stabilization period do we need to add or subtract money to what we applied to the rates? and to step back for a second you have what i think is the most responsible policy of any public sector entity that i have worked for and on the self funded programs if we generate surplus and the premiums were greater than the expenses and take that amount of money and give it back to the people from that plan over which it's generated over three years. there is a gap of one year so when we analyze

where we're on the surplus or deficit position with united care, the city flan and look at 2014 to apply to 2016 rates so i turn you to page two because that's the actual versus the expected. >> >> in 2014 we actually reduced the rates because we had excess money -- did i say 13? 2014 -- yes, we reduced the rates. what happened is this is mainly e -- triggered by egwp and if it happened in theory we would be slightly under funded and we were over funded and we knew that, so at the end of the day when we did all of the math and vetted by the ceo this is what we expected, this is what actually happened, and we have

$10 million more to put into the stabilization reserve to carry forward. wow you generated a lot of surplus. i want everyone to know in 15 we basically said let's reduce the rates for city plan so we dropped the rates the first time for 18% and early retirees and 22% for medicare retirees and this stabilization creating the reserve will not happen going forward. we have money to go back into the rates but you don't see a large surplus on a forward going basis. with that being said unless there are questions i want to carry us through what happens with the money now that we have a estimate which i think is the final estimate of this. this is a reconciliation of 14. okay. so we actually go back to

the first page and we say okay $10 million. so we take that amount of money and we go back to page one, and if you look at page one last year we ended up with a carry forward balance of $14 million, and as soon as we adopted egwp these numbers got big fast. okay. we add the $10 million. we have $25 million that we basically -- if i can say this in the correct way. we have to give back $25 million over three years. that's just the way it is based on the policy so we're going to put 8.5 million dollars back into the rates in 2016 and allocated on membership and everyone gets a certain amount and i will show you that in the next presentation but that's where we're at in terms of

surplus for this particular program. any questions? questions by members of the board. >> >> any public comment? okay. thank you for this discussion item. >> is this a discussion item? >> [inaudible] >> yeah i actually need you to approve it. you can't? my bad. >> it's an action item. >> it's listed as a discussion item on the agenda and we will carry it forward for the next meeting. all right. madam secretary. >> item 8. review of city plan hhv utilization and claims experience with preliminary

rates. >> this is a discussion item. >> yes, sir. you have the experience for the united health care plan. all that we have been talking about leads up to this and a set of preliminary rates for 2016 so i turn you to page two, and there's not a lot of people in this program. this is the active cohort of individuals covered under the uhc city plan. as you can see we're at 600 and e plus ones at 76 and we're at 33 people in the family. most of these people are in areas where there is a special stipend that allows them to not have to pay the now $400 contribution rate based on the recent contribution formula and if you look at the premium levels those controlled to blue shield and kaiser rates are very big, and so the policy has been to continue carrying this forward and at some point and

time i recommend that we consider what we're going to do besides just -- at some point either do we change this? reignite the plan, close the plan? i don't know but we need to address it at this point and it's hard to rate when it's some small so that's the data there we turn over to page three. we look at the early retiree program, the experience is slightly better. i want to point out i have a little issue with membership but we carried forward what we thought is the correct membership. this won't change the answer. this is running okay. this early retiree program and then we look at the third and big piece which was shared before and which is the medicare experience. we have the egwp and the 171. we are interested if we could

possibly look at fully insured examples of this down the road since this is preliminary. we're keen on talking to entities because a lot of people are aggressive about this program and put this together on a cpo basis but right now i have given numbers with the existing program as it stands so we haven't finalized it but we're curious what is out there to keep the numbers low so that's that experience so now in the interest of time i know i'm going fast. are there questions about the general experience? we expect that the retirees are doing great. >> any questions or comments from the board? and before i call for public comment these items are something i call up teeing up of process of rates and benefits and let's be clear what's transpired over the last 20 minutes. there are policy issues, commitments around

stabilization reserves, contingencies, all those things so we're setting the table if you will in the public forum to go into a more substantive discussion around rate, programs and designs and rfps if they're on certain activities and so on, so this is administrative today in large measure but we're trying to inform you to give you our best interesting of where some of the items stand so they should be used as a reference going forward getting to that final time in june when the chamber will be full i am sure to hear the ultimate result of all of this work. okay thank you. >> okay. so with that there are no questions on the data. >> no questions from the board of. is there any public comment? okay. >> the next section is the claims methodology and request of hss it's getting more difficult because the data sets

for the actors and early retirees are very small to come up with a case specific trend we made the best effort with this data and what we would do with the preliminary rate so i have outlined on the next couple of pages what we came up with, and unless there are any questions about that it's out there and in its actuarial glory and we have what i think are reasonable trends. the data is kind of flat and the medicare data -- even though it's 6700 people it looks like they're not going to the doctor that much and used to be the case with early retirees so the trend rates are very nice so with that being said unless there are questions i will just move on. okay. >> question here. >> oh there is a question. yes, sir?

>> no, i am just going ahead of you and looking at the 2016 rates. >> these right here. >> yeah. >> okay. you have a question or you want me -- >> just go -- [inaudible] >> go right ahead. >> so i'm at the preliminary rate on page 10. okay. on plan year 2015 we have the rates that are presently part of the rate basis for this year. we did all the math with the numbers we have and the trends that we developed, and overall the rates for 16 -- from 15 which dropped approximately 20% from 14 i am saying they should only go up 4%, three and a half, 4%. now, that's good, real good as an act area and if we have the rates and they need to go up based on this information we over did it

but this indicates everything we knew about the program sustained itself and recommended to have a slight increase and as we are teeing up sir so well we might want to do a rate pass, and then in addition to that as i shared we're still investigating other opportunities for the possibility of changing the funding structure of the retirees, the medicare folks, so if that comes to pass at any time that will change the dynamics of this also. with that being said that's where we are, a mild increase. other questions? >> questions from board members regarding the preliminary rates? >> what do you mean with the funding structure and changing it. >> you're self funded and you have the egwp and the drug piece and medicare pays a lot and you pay the rest and there are programs fully insured developed

like sort of medicare advantage pp o and not change the ppo and they're out there and prevalent in the landscape and they allow people in the programs to really manage the care and they they could possibly put us in a same position or better and have a long trend rate for the people and as i work for catherine and pamela and everybody at hss and it's my responsibility to share these opportunities so they're looking into them, so we're on top of what is available to do the best we can for these people in terms of providing medicare coverage so that's what that means. >> i would just add my desire. >> yes, sir. >> -- as we go through the process and it's true for any other adjustments or changes we're doing programmatically with providers. there is a

point in time i think it would be yourself -- i will turn to director dodd and indicate when that is as you're coming out of preliminary conversations into more substantive conversations about this you make members of the board aware so any of us that want to participate in that meeting to hear what the thinking is going back and forth between providers and some of us will show up unexpectedly maybe but show up when dealing with the providers and plan designs and those issues so if we're going to act like the committee of the whole we have to get beyond today's meeting and get down in the weeds and i did that prior to becoming board president and i anticipate i will do some of that again during this season,

so if we're acting as a committee of the whole we have to take on that responsibility when those opportunities present themselves. all right. okay. >> okay. thank you sir for those comments and very highly respected. lastly just as a matter of closure on these preliminary rates we have provided on page 12 the standard rate card. this is what you see every year. it has our projected rates, our ad min fees that we talked about earlier. we adjusted certain numbers so -- i know we have a lot to do. this $208.09 number right here and stabilization and it's from the number earlier and what does it translate into an adjustment with the rate? so that is everything there. we did two rate cards i believe because we have two contribution formulas. we have the

two of them and what are the differences and prop b and questions from the past and footnoted here. >> i would put this as a reference document as we go through the process. director dodd. >> it doesn't have the county yet for the final recommendation. >> we don't have the final 10 county but i spoke to the existing county and made it 3% bigger as a proxy. >> and how did you approve it and last year plus 3%? >> yes, sir. >> quick question on the preliminary rates for the early retirees. >> yes, sir. >> how does -- the formula works out because as far as their claims -- incurred blames [inaudible] ratio and pretty good in terms of their claims --

in terms of their claims -- >> [inaudible] >> the claims experience. >> we have to blend it with the actives. >> they're part of the actives. >> yeah. that's our policy and that's why they go up the same amount. >> exactly and looking at -- >> yes and -- >> yeah absolutely well observed and our policy is unless we change it we do that. >> thank you. any other questions from the board on this item? okay. so this is again the beginning of sisphysis' rock and we will come back to it. any public comment? >> good afternoon commissioners. i am claire representing rrccf. my question is as was talked about that early retirees are being

combined with the actives to determine rates, but i think there has been discussion about the possibility of having them somehow banded with the medicare retirees to see if there is some way to give relief on those rates. is it possible as we go through the process that we will see both options so you have an opportunity to see which works out to the advantage of the early retirees? >> i am looking to director dodd but i will ask director dodd. we will take that but if you have an answer that's fine. >> i think what will go into the discussions is what what happened at the last month and the ektsicize tax and whether we're allowed to blend them and

that's probably the most significant factor and we don't know that information yet. >> okay. so that would have to do with -- >> rules way beyond us. >> right at the federal level and this is this continuing story. meetings are a chapter. sometimes we have to remember what went before and what is coming up, so again for those who are in our broader audience we ask you to go back and look at some of the materials on rates and benefits from the last meeting and obtain and review this and as we go forward do likewise. i'm going to claim the privilege of the chair and call for a hygiene break of 10 minutes. 10 minutes we will stand in recess. [gavel] (recess).

>> thank you. >> combine nine and 11. >> yes. so if you had indicated we ordered nine to be part of 10 and 11 so madam secretary. >> item 10 discussion item. hss fiscal year 2015-16 and 2016-17 general fund administrative budget. pamela levin. >> pamela. where is she? director dodd if you would please. >> catherine dodd. this item was presented at committee this morning and represents a base budget leading up to the mayor's

requirements and no additions. we pulled out four area we're asking for additional funding for and not anticipated in your packet. it says what they are and we can go through them but i think the finish committee spent enough time and i think you're good. >> mr. chair just open this up to questions and we had a great deliberation not only with this board but the other board in the future. >> all right. are there questions from the board? >> i will repeat what i said and i would like to see paying for the governance committee and a consultant in the future and we had a lot of work to do this past year and don't want it to slide again for years. that's all i have. >> duly noted. all