Outrage at CalPERS’ 85% rate hike for long-term care

February 20, 2013 - By admin

Long term care - WikipediaFeb. 20, 2013

By Dave Roberts

When tens of thousands of state employees signed up for the California Public Employees Retirement System‘s long-term care insurance plan as it was first offered in 1995, they thought they were doing the prudent thing for themselves and their loved ones. For a reasonable premium, they were ensuring they would not be a burden to their families should they become incapacitated in their old age.

But the CalPERS plan has been so over-promised and under-funded that what was supposed to be a comfort for retirees has instead turned into a nightmare of premium increases and benefit cutbacks. The latest rate hike — a whopping 85 percent — has been hitting in recent days. Many policy holders threatening to cancel, thereby losing the tens of thousands of dollars they may have already paid in. There even are calls for a class-action lawsuit against CalPERS.

Employees and retirees recently have contacted CalWatchdog.com. And a September, 2010 article on CalWatchdog.com, “CalPERS’ Ailing Long-Term Care Plan,” started lighting up with new comments from those affected and outraged.

Outrage

Their outrage was eloquently expressed by Katie Greene, a long-time care policy holder and member of the Retired Public Employees Association. She was speaking at the October 17, 2012 CalPERS meeting just before the board considered the 85 percent rate hike:

“I adamantly oppose, object and disagree with this proposal before you today. This proposal is onerous, noxious and unfair. It is punitive to those of us who chose the ‘lifetime with inflation protection.’ It appears designed and calculated to force us in the lifetime with inflation protection out of this plan and into the 10-year plan. Or to force us out of CalPERS long-term care, period. This is a huge increase in rate. And it’s contrary to the basic spirit, reason and rationale for purchasing long-term care insurance.

“I chose a long-term care plan to be prepared and ready for the anticipated demands of my health needs in my old age. Instead I find myself in old age with a fixed income in a battle with CalPERS, which I trusted, with an ever-rising premium and an ever-changing long-term care insurance program. I entered into an agreement with you, which has turned out to be troublesome, tumultuous and now a financial disaster.

“Over 150,000 of us trusted and depended on CalPERS to hire competent, capable, intelligent experts, managers and administrators of this program to invest our long-term care funds wisely and prudently. Instead, you’re here today saying to me, who’s now a senior on a fixed income, that I have to agree to a lesser policy or face this 85 percent increase. I ask, ‘Is there any health care plan that isn’t being inflated?’ Yet you’re asking me to decide on a different policy without inflation [protection].

“You have not been forthcoming with us. You have not given us any assurances that this plan will work. How do we know that in 3, 5, 10, 15 years you will not be here asking us to suck it up again and take a huge increase? This is certainly not the bargain I made with you over a decade ago. I urge you to vote a resounding no on this unfair proposal. It is not in keeping with an agreement that we made. Send it back to us with a more fair, more fair, fair and equitable, solution. Honor your agreement.”

The 85 percent rate hike would have CalPERS retirees who are 70 and older and want lifetime protection paying $21,475 annually for a joint policy. That’s about three times the rate for federal employees and double the rate of some private insurance plans. And that’s for just the base plan without optional riders covering things like inflation protection, the restoration of benefits and the return of the premium death benefit, which can add thousands more to the annual cost.

Two years

To lessen the pain, CalPERS is spreading the 85 percent rate hike over two years beginning in July 2015. For those who prefer to take their medicine in one lump in just one year, the rate hike would be “only 79 percent,” as it’s phrased in a CalPERS press release.

The rate hike is targeted at those who purchased policies between 1995 and 2004 that provide three-year, six-year or lifetime benefits with inflation protection. (Benefits automatically increase with health care inflation.) Or lifetime benefits without inflation protection. Comprising the majority of the more than 148,000 LTC policy holders, they are starting to receive letters from CalPERS notifying them of the rate increase.

They can avoid the rate hike by reducing their coverage to a maximum of 10 years of benefits without inflation protection. The 85 percent rate hike was calculated based on the assumption that 10 percent of those with lifetime benefits will switch to the 10-year maximum plan.

If more than 10 percent switch, the rate hike might be reduced. But if fewer than 10 percent switch, the rate hike could be greater than 85 percent. CalPERS officials argue that it makes sense to switch to shorter term coverage because the average long-term care claim lasts 3.6 years.

The rate hike is just the latest in a series of premium increases since 2003. In July 2010, policy holders were hit with a 15-22 percent hike. Many have also suffered 5 percent increases annually since then.

Higher claims

According to a CalPERS press release, the 85 percent increase “is necessary to offset the effect of higher-than-expected claims, lower-than-expected investment income, the Board’s adoption of a more conservative LTC Fund investment mix, and a lowering of the Fund’s investment discount rate to 5.75 percent to align with the more conservative investment portfolio.”

Concerning the higher-than-expected claims, CalPERS officials “missed two key factors: the enormous increase in Alzheimer’s Disease and more families’ willingness to move their loved ones into a facility for care,” wrote California State Retirees President Susan Sears in the December CSR newsletter. “Decades ago, both personal bankruptcy and ‘rest homes’ had a fair amount of stigma attached to them; both have become fairly commonplace nowadays. Exhausted caregivers are discovering they simply cannot provide 24/7 care for loved ones; they are forced to find a safe, comfortable place with different people working three shifts to care for the residents.”

Like CalPERS officials, Sears is hoping the 85 percent rate hike will induce many of those with lifetime benefits to switch to 10-year plans.

“Because the 10-year option is finite, people might not rush into receiving care until they’re absolutely sure it’s needed,” she wrote. “With the present, unlimited plans, people often go into care sooner than they really need to — which drives up the cost. We’re all living much longer, and the likelihood of most of us needing more than 10 years of LTC is greatly reduced.”

She’s also looking forward to CalPERS re-opening enrollment in its long-term care plan at the end of this year, which would bring in more revenue from younger policy holders. Currently the average age is 65.

CalPERS’ decision

CalPERS officials believe they’ve done the right thing for their policy holders with the 85 percent rate hike.

“We took great care to listen to the concerns of our policy holder constituent groups, and weighed staff proposals for these options carefully before making our decision,” said Board President Rob Feckner. “We are taking these actions to ensure the sustainability of the Long-Term Care Fund and the availability of benefits for our policy holders.”

Priya Mathur, chairwoman of the board’s Pension and Health Benefits Committee, said, “We feel the plan options we will offer our policy holders make this a win-win situation, especially for those with lifetime benefit policies. With the average length of stay in a care facility a little over three years, we think the 10-year conversion option will provide more than adequate coverage when our policy holders need it.”

Ann Boynton, CalPERS’ deputy executive officer in charge of the LTC program, responded to Greene’s allegation that CalPERS failed to hire “competent, capable, intelligent experts, managers and administrators.”

“The staff has been working incredibly hard to ensure that this program is sustainable over the long-term,” Boynton told the CalPERS board. “The issues that we are facing relative to the need to propose to you a rate increase are not tied to the competency of the managers of the program.”

But Boynton then stated that previous managers had failed to ensure adequate funding.

“This is a fundamental question of a failure to set these premium levels at a rate that will be sustainable into the future,” she said. “As a board you’ve been wrestling with this challenge since 2003, when you first began to really look at it. We understand that this has been a long journey for the policy holders. We are full intent by bringing this to you at this point with a single rate increase spread over two years or taken in one that we will finally be able to provide the policy holders with sustainability and predictability into the future.

“That is, to the best of our ability to predict what will happen, they will be able to count on their premiums staying stable. If we ever for whatever reason should need to come before you again to look at a premium increase, we will work that issue with you well in advance apprising you of all of the circumstances that might lead to that.”

Meetings

Although the vote for the 85 percent rate hike was unanimous, some board members were not happy about it.

“This is a very painful pill to swallow, and obviously a difficult issue to vote for just based on the percentages,” said Dan Dunmoyer. “The challenge of long-term care is that as people live longer it becomes, as we can see here, very, very expensive to sustain it. … It’s the joy of life expectancy growing and living longer. But it’s also the challenge from an actuarial and benefit perspective of providing this benefit with any degree of success. We should stick to our knitting. And in this case this is really not our best knitting. I’m going to support this. But this is a very difficult business to be in.”

The CalPERS Pension and Health Benefits Committee, which oversees the long-term care program, meets Wednesday, Feb. 20 at 8:30 a.m. in the Lincoln Plaza North auditorium in Sacramento. The full board meets on Thursday, Feb. 21 at 9 a.m. in the same location.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments(75)
  1. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) says:

    I sort of agree with Calpers on this one. You gotta pay to play…..all insurance has gone up and LTC contemplates medical costs– period. And we all know how they’ve risen! Bravo Calpers– and congrats on the continued rise of the 250 bil dollar fund!!

    I LOVE this Country and I LOVE California!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. Douglas says:

    It isn’t a problem exclusive to CalPERS. Premiums for ALL long term carriers are increasing.

    My wife wanted me to check this out years ago. Suzy Orman, of all people, convinced me NOT to go for it. She said if you pay faithfully for years, then stop paying due to job loss, etc. ALL your previous payments are for nothing.

    AND, if rates increase to a point you cant afford it, again, all your money is lost.

    If there were a way to get credit for prior payments, but with reduced benefits, it may be worthwhile.

    • Ron says:

      What I have heard (read) Suzy Orman say is to choose a premium amount you can live with for the next 20+yrs (how long it is typically going to take before you need the insurance). Of course, how can you anticipate these kind of rate increases? There are alternative options, like hybrid policies that have higher premiums BUT the premiums are fixed, can be limited to a set number of years, can have a full return of premium if you don’t use the policy for LTC, and can have an income tax free death benefit if you never use some or all of the policy amount. Believe or not, there actually is even one I’m aware of that actually still offers lifetime benefits (something all the traditional carriers, just like CalPERS, have stopped offering)

  3. stolson1234 says:

    Long term care policies are quite tricky–read between the lines for actual care to be given. Many other type policy holders–thanks to noobamacare–are seeing big percent increases in premiums–some say almosy 33%–non union.
    It appears everyone is being hit hard lately. I read where noobamacare was written by the insurance industry. No politician that I know of understood the ramifications of this. Now, non private but public unions are finding drastic changes.
    The politicians will not suffer.

  4. us citizen says:

    Put that money in the bank then. When there were decent interest rates you could save for what ever you needed and didnt lose it. Oh wait…….people dont save anymore! Well that is their problem.

  5. Dave Roberts says:

    Too late to be included in this article, I received the following information from CalPERS’ LTC spokesman Bill Madison:

    In response to your inquiry, we understand that the premium increases announced in 2012 may be difficult for some of our members enrolled in the CalPERS Long-Term Care (LTC) Program. However, the increases were vital to stabilizing the solvency of the Long-Term Care Fund that supports the Program. The increases will help offset higher-than-expected claims, lower-than-expected past investment income and anticipated reductions in future investment earnings based on a less risky investment portfolio. As the Long-Term Care Program’s administrator, the CalPERS Board of Administration has the responsibility of ensuring the LTC Fund has the ability to pay expected future claims. In other words, the Board took these steps to ensure the long-term care coverage members expect will be there when they need it.

    It is because of the difficulty some members might face that we developed options that would allow them to either retain their long-term care coverage as it is, or change to another plan that would still provide adequate coverage to meet their long-term care needs while paying the same or a lower premium. Last week, CalPERS sent letters to members enrolled in the LTC Program to provide more details about the premium increases and alert members to the fact that they will be offered the options to avoid those increases.

    CalPERS will send additional letters to LTC-enrolled members that will provide more details on the new plan options and the possible impact it will have on those who change their policies. We will then send them each policyholder an offer specific to him or her. It will state the exact coverage change options available to them and the exact amount they’ll have to pay for the new coverage. Again, the new options will provide adequate coverage and lower the member’s premium.

    You can find additional information about the LTC Program in a set of Frequently Asked Questions on our website at http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/member/ltc/faqs-2015-rate.xml.

  6. Dave Roberts says:

    Also too late to be included in this article, I received the following from Harvey Robinson, president of RPEA:

    The Retired Public Employees Association (RPEA) Board was shocked at the enormity of the 85% rate hike. When the program was initially marketed, members were assured that “premiums were designed to remain level.” This most recent increase which is effective July 1, 2015 more than doubles the initial cost for members. The solvency of the program which is based solely on member premiums and the investment of those premiums has been subject to poor underwriting for the benefits offered and the impact of the “Great Recession”.

    Members impacted by the 85% increase will soon be offered instead of a comprehensive lifetime plan with or without inflation a 10 year plan with inflation options. CalPERS has indicated that 99% of members who have used their benefits have done so within a 10 year period. So instead of having a “cadillac” plan with peace of mind, they will have a small degree of uncertainty.

    We are aware that a number of people are enraged over the premium increase and are upset over CalPERS’ breach of trust; however, the RPEA Board has chosen not to pursue a class action lawsuit in this matter.

  7. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) says:

    Douglas– Right on! Suzy O is awesome– she convinced me to pay my house off a few years back— makes semi retirement EEEEEEEasy!!!

  8. SeeSaw says:

    CalPERS members have known about this situation for months. Your headline is quite an exaggeration.

  9. Doug Perry says:

    Suzy Orman has a different attitude now. Google suzy orman $25000 mistake and see her interview.

  10. Hondo says:

    CalPERS has done what so many govt operations have done, promised more than they can pay. Now they have to catch up.
    And Kalifornian’s have fallen into the trap that they are ‘entitled’ to cheap anything. That the Koch bros are going to pay for it. When in fact, they were going to get the full bill all along.
    Quit whining. You idiots voted for these idiots who tole you everything is ‘free’ and that someone else is going to pay for it. Now these old folks are bound to the hip to a bankrupt govt entity and either the price goes up or you get shi$$y care. Or both.
    Hondo

  11. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) says:

    zzzzzzz Hondo– you’re right about one thing— you and many other dopes probably voted for these guys. What you fail to remember are the many years the dopes let you not pay into compensating your workers…..lol….ahhhh remember McFly????

  12. Lib habit says:

    “Over 150,000 of us trusted and depended on CalPERS to hire competent, capable, intelligent experts, managers and administrators of this program to invest our long-term care funds wisely and prudently. Instead…”

    Boo hoo whaaaaaaaa! Join the NTHOEC firewhiners and cry out a fire. Can a man take fire into his bosom and not be burned?

  13. The Modified Ted Steele Methodologies (tm) says:

    Proverbs 6:27 very good Lib Habit.

  14. PJ says:

    Calpers is run by the unions and the politicians.

    I do not trust them to take care of me in my old age.

  15. Deanna Enos says:

    It is time for CalPERS to ask themselves why they cannot sustain the coverage they are contracting to people even as they are saying it is unsustainable. Just what kind of care can they provide these people who paid so much over the years. At least return some of their money so they can take care of themselves. To suck other young people into Long Term Care that they know is unsustainable is no more than a Ponzi scheme. Talk of underwriting Long Term Care is absolutely ludicrous. Long Term care benefits are for the elderly who cannot care for themselves and need help. CalPERS has a problem but trying to convince their lifetime members that 10 years is for their benefit is adding insult to injury. CalPERS owes these people money or a margin of care without their paying another dime.

  16. eatingdogfood says:

    If The Democrats Didn’t Give ” Sweetheart Deals ” To Your Public Service Union.
    Goon Employees To Get Reelected; You Would Have Plenty Of Money and The.
    Taxpayer would have Some Spare Change in His Pockets! Democratic Hustler
    Politicians + Corrupt Union Goons = BANKRUPTCY BABY! Time To Bring.
    RICO Conspiracy Charges Against The Hustler Corrupt Democrats and the.
    Criminal Unions!

  17. Tough Love says:

    LTC, …. an increasing-claims-cost (with age) form of insurance, priced and certainly marketed as having a LEVEL lifetime premium (meaning you OVERPAY in the early policy years and underpay in the much later policy years), but which has no “Cash Value” (to recover your early year designed-in over-payments) if you lapse or surrender the policy …. WAS and IS a SUCKER’s bet from the getgo.

  18. Tough Love says:

    Isn’t it nice (for Taxpayers) when the cost of fixing the UNDER-COSTING of a benefit (LTC in this case) is paid for by the beneficiaries, and NOT the Taxpayers.

    That’s the way CA’s pension Plan investment risk should be managed (borne by the Plan participants and active workers), as the Taxpayers have been the sucker’s in THAT equation for far too long.

    Want proof (that the Taxpayers are treated as the SUCKERS)? Did you see THIS paragraph above:

    “According to a CalPERS press release, the 85 percent increase “is necessary to offset the effect of higher-than-expected claims, lower-than-expected investment income, the Board’s adoption of a more conservative LTC Fund investment mix, and a lowering of the Fund’s investment discount rate to 5.75 percent to align with the more conservative investment portfolio.””

    So when CalPERS can’t pass the investment losses on to the Taxpayers (as is the case with LTC), 5.75% is the appropriate assumption, but when they CAN pass along such losses, then they use the 7.5% rate. CalPERS Board is Union dominated, and they know that using the MUCH more appropriate lower rate (such as the 5.75% rate) for PENSION valuation, it would significantly increase contributions and hence taxes …. and taxpayer demand for Pension reform. That’s the bottom line, the Board’s inappropriate protection of their members’ excessive pensions to the detriment of Taxpayers.

  19. Heh Heh says:

    ROFLMAO on this line in the article.
    “Over 150,000 of us trusted and depended on CalPERS to hire competent, capable, intelligent experts, managers and administrators of this program to invest our long-term care funds wisely and prudently”

    Time to make some popcorn and watch the upcoming show around 1 group of Calpers beneficiaries going at it with another group. Make it good guys, we all love a good catfight!

  20. Kurt Hahn says:

    When the LTC program was established CalPERS staff offered multiple projectios of it’s economics much the same that it did for the 3% at 30 years for public safety pensions. The CalPERS Board and others interest groups quickly shifted attention to the most optumistic of the three senarios and both were approved. Blaiming CalPers staff vat this point is off base.

  21. Heh Heh says:

    Shocking to see that the advocates of more taxes and fees don’t like it so much when the same phenomenon affects them. I would have expected the same level of enthusiasm and hurrahs from this group as there is from Calpers beneficiaries in general when they are successful in sticking taxpayers with more taxes and fees. Truly I am saddened by this development.

  22. Advisor_37 yrs says:

    I am a CFP and CLU who has known for years that LTC was underpriced and overpromised. I am a fee only adviser so I course I kept my clients from buying this product, either privately or through CalPERS. I remember the advertisements: they made it seem so good. Instead, look for a hybrid LTC/life insurance policy with a single pay. That way if you need LTC like 1 in 3 people do, you will have the death benefit to borrow. And if you don’t need it, your family will get the death benefit, with no net payments for the peace of mind knowing that LTC was covered.

  23. eatingdogfood says:

    Isn’t It Time For The Abused Taxpayers Of These Union Shop States To Leave In Masses In Order To End This Unholy Conspiracy Between The Totally Corrupt Democrats And The Equally Corrupt Public Service Unions ??? It Is Really The Only Way To Finally End This Criminal Activity !!! Did Anybody Ever Hear Of RICO ???

  24. Tough Love says:

    Advisor_37, That only works if you’re looking to buy permanent insurance which is generally unneeded (other than for estate-planning purposes which impacts very few). Those who need Insurance (everyone with a young family or have dependents who depend on your income) should buy LEVEL TERM Ins at the cheapest cost (from a highly rated company). If you are a fee only adviser and earning no commission selling it, I have no idea why you are recommending it. Besides, anyone can “borrow” the cash value from a permanent Life Ins. Policy. There needn’t be a tie-in to LTC.

    Now if you didn’t really mean “borrow”, and a portion of the policy’s normal Death Benefit can be taken as a LTC benefit, that could be a good idea as long as the cost of a policy with that option is only slightly greater than that of an otherwise identical policy w/o that provision …. AND (very importantly) you have a true need for PERMANENT Life Ins. (noting that few do).

    Where we agree is that LTC is a lousy product (see my earlier comment).

  25. Ann says:

    We spoke to an insurance Broker yesterday who gave us some estimates re Long Term Care with other insurance companies. Now we have a six year policy with inflation protection with with Cal Pers. We had a Lifetime policy until 2010, and reduced our benefits, due to the rate hike of 5% on lifetime policies. Our broker, told us that he had had many inquires from Cal Pers members seeking to change to another company. Particularly disturbing to us, our broker also stated one Cal Pers member had received a letter in October, 2012, stating that only those with Lifetime policies would be affected! We never received such a letter. We we asked someone in customer service why, they didn’t know! This is very suspicious.

  26. Tough Love says:

    Ann, CalPERS Plan is 100% fund by Plan participants. If the claims are going up (and the Plan neew more revenue to cover those costs) and you do not want to pay your increase, please suggest which of your associates should pay your share.

    Increased costs aren’t fun when you can’t pass them along to Taxpayers ?

  27. Ann says:

    Tough Love, I am well aware that CalPers Long Term Care is funded by participants. I mean, Duh? Of course I don’t want an increase, (who does) and I am not suggesting that ANYONE pay my share. I just think CalPers may not be impartial about WHO pays the increase AND I am suspicious that they could be trying to force older members out so they won’t have to pay their claims. They have to save money somewhere, right? Why not stick to the older people who don’t have as much opportunity to walk. Got it?

    Please don’t distort what I write.

  28. Tough Love says:

    Ann, you make a valid point … and what you suggest is indeed possible. If this were Private Insurance, the State’s Insurance Dep’t would be looking into the very large increase amount and it’s allocation among Plans so that one group isn’t unduly subsidizing another, but since this is the notoriously non-transparent CalPERS, I doubt that they would be willing to subject their planned increase to an independent fairness review.

  29. Stephanie says:

    I ask: what are the actual policy holders to pay out? One policy holder in Six actually place an approved claim?
    To qualify for a claim pay, the following must be met: 1 in 6 Assisted Living needs; reside in a State Licensed facility with 12 or more residents. Then if 1 of your 3 conditions improve, you are done. One pays again at a new age based rate. You are welcomed to reapply. AL Apartments run about $3k a month & $300 for EACH Assisted Living Service + $100 to package & manage meds. Do you think this policy actually pays out to real world costs? I am sorry I have been paying for nothing for 17 years. Guess I was young and dumb. I want a premium refund thank you. What are the odds of one having a permanently non-functioning stroke anyway?

  30. Larry Kaiser says:

    I’ve paid for the “Cadillac” LTC pgm. since ’95 when then Republican Pete Wilson signed legislation enabling this California health care innovation. Designated staff of CalPERS, prompted by then CalPERS Board President, Dr. Bill Crist, began holding meetings to promote enrollment in the “PERS Long-Term-Care-Program”. This is the wording that defines the program on the printed copies of the enrollment forms I signed. I understand that CalPERS runs the insurance program thru its Board of Administration. Its financial status has appeared on CalPERS Annual Financial Reports, making some State officials nervous. It certainly has all the trappings of a State pgm. I for one viewed it as such.
    A few commentators (angry with government) have “clucked” with delight that if the PERS LTC Insurance Pgm. collapses with the weight of obligations it can’t meet, then there is no State Tax Payer bail-out, since it is separate from the Pension Fund. However, in view of all included in my paragraph above, I find it hard to believe that the PERS LTC Insurance Program, from a legal standpoint, is no more than a ephemeral, non-entity that can be made to simply disappear with no State responsibility, implicit or otherwise. None of the 100,000 plus affected enrollees wishes to be among the last group out with no legal recourse ( being forced out with future premium increases and benefit cuts that that no sane person would accept). RPEA elected no lawsuit at present. I think that BILL MADISON

  31. Robert T says:

    Taxpayers are being raped by public sector pensions. Let them eat cake.

  32. Marga Aller says:

    Raise hiking…It can’t be helped. Even in a supermarket, every goods have some price hike. However, we can’t deny the fact that we need it, especially in these days. A lot, more people get sick and elders being left alone. It’s just up to the people, whether they continue looking for perfect long term care policies.

  33. Bob says:

    OK, if the raise is going to force people to stop paying who cannot afford it that is WRONG and they should get back every penny they paid to date.

  34. Gary Wegener says:

    Time to shoot the puppy? Doing otherwise just prolongs the agony.

    The basic problem is that CalPers LTC is assumed to be an insurance company, but isn’t. So all our assumptions related to that are erroneous.

    Because CalPers LTC in not an insurance program, it is not subject to regulation by the state insurance commissioner. So there are some real structural problems with CalPers LTC. Interesting to note that CalPers website states: The CalPERS Long-Term Care Program is the nation’s only voluntary, self-funded, not-for-profit program (guess everyone else is lucky for that). Also, at least for now, they aren’t accepting additional applications.

    There should be special legislation subjecting CalPers LTC program to a thorough review by the state insurance commissioner, like other LTC insurance programs, to validate their current rates, and tell us whether they feel CalPers will be able to provide coverage without future rate increases. That is what is done for rate increases for other LTC insurance. It isn’t fool proof, but at least an outside agency, schooled in such oversight, is doing it.

    Most importantly, your site should highlight the California Partnership for Long Term Care, http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/services/ltc If LTC is right for your circumstances, this is a better product. Also, Health Insurance Counseling and Advocacy Program (HICAP) at http://www.aging.ca.gov/hicap/ overs advise on determining the need for LTC.

  35. [...] (Dave Roberts writes for CalWatchdog.com. Originally posted on CalWatchdog.) [...]

  36. Haren says:

    Well, two older couples approached me and asked about physician assisted suicide. They said they could not afford the 85% increase, and they don’t trust CalPERS to not do it again down the road. The only way they’d stay in is if there was some oversight….like put it under the state insurance dept.
    It is a disgrace, and a sign of what is to come in SS, Medicare…..Seniors are being thrown overboard.

  37. William Hatcher says:

    My wife and I bought long term care from CalPers in 1995. The policy was lifetime with adjustments each year for inflation and advertised as a level premium policy. We retired (wife in 2003) and myself in 2004. At that time our joint premiums were $1872. This year the premiums jumped to $4785 or 155% increase in 9 years. When the new charges are added in 2015 our premiums will escalate to $9,759 or a 431.3% increase since 2004. That is an average annual percentage increase of 35%. The action by the CalStrs board is unethical and beats most pyramid schemes I have ever known. We have invested so far $48,553. I have requested the right to address the board (in a formal letter) but have not heard from their administration. I do know something about health care cost increases as I retired as superintendent of the largest high school district in the United States. I believe board should be contacted as well as the California State Insurance Commissioner.

  38. Gretchen Saaduddin says:

    I am shocked by some of the hateful comments on this site. I have a home which is paid off, I have always saved money and thought that by purchasing this LTC I was being responsible. I worked at UCLA for 33 years and we were approached by CalPers gleefully stating that we “now qualify” to purchase this product. I have no children to care for me, and this was an attempt to have a relatively decent old age once I am incapacitated. I am constantly amazed that the Social Security Administration, and every other type of insurance or program for elder care seemed to think that the baby boomers would never reach old age. Prices for care don’t jump up 85% at once. There is a gradual increase with a few jumps. The elderly are indeed being thrown under the bus by greedy fund administrators who collect their fat paychecks and don’t do their jobs. If we could review a list of the ages and types of policies of the people being forced to pay this increase, it would be those of us who are recently retired or soon to retire and have been paying for lifetime care. They have had the float on our money all this time, knowing full well that they would try to push us out before any payout is requested. This is truly criminal. This reminds me of how UCLA cut back on our retirement contributions so that we could take home larger paychecks. This was in response to faculty and staff complaining about not getting any real raise for many years. Now our retirement fund is also underfunded. Where do they get these fund managers anyway? I cannot pay for this increase, I retired from UCLA for crying out loud!

  39. Donna Harlow says:

    Bait and Switch.
    I purchased my policy in 1999. The premium was $99 a month for a Life Time Benefit with Inflation Protection. The Evidence of Coverage Comprehensive Plan booklet, page 32–titled “BENEFIT: INFLATION PROTECTION”, states in bold letters, “Your Premium Will Not Increase” “Your premium rate will not increase as a result of these annual benefit increases.” I was supprised when the premiums started going up four years later. I was mad, but the increase was within reason. BUT, if the rates go up 85%, I’ll be paying $458 a month. That’s a 400% increase in 14 years…BOLD FACED FRAUD. I can’t accept this.

  40. Donna Harlow says:

    Bait and Switch.
    I purchased my policy in 1999. The premium was $99 a month for a Life Time Benefit with Inflation Protection. The Evidence of Coverage Comprehensive Plan booklet, page 32–titled “BENEFIT: INFLATION PROTECTION”, states in bold letters, “Your Premium Will Not Increase” “Your premium rate will not increase as a result of these annual benefit increases.” I was supprised when the premiums started going up four years later. I was mad, but the increase was within reason. However, if rates go up 85%, I’ll be paying $458 a month. That’s a 400% increase in 14 years. BOLD FACED FRAUD. Do I smell corruption?

  41. David says:

    I am 77 and my wife is nearly 70 and both of us are on fixed incomes. We got a policy during the ripoff period of the mid 90′s because it was sold to us with very flowery words. Now that the board is throwing us under the bus and we will not be able to handle the absurd increase we will probably have to give it up and God forbid if something happens to one of us we will probably lose everything. This is just another example of our country sliding into communism by incrementalism. I just got notified that a board election is coming up soon and maybe it’s time to replace the whole board with one that has our six.

  42. David says:

    In 2010, when we were notified of the first major increase, we objected vigorously and were told that they had grossly underestimated the increase in claims and medical costs. They then said that they had hired outside “expert actuaries” to make more reliable projections for benefit costs. {Were their own actuaries NOT experts???] Is there really that much change (AGAIN) in a less-than-three-year period?

    Will everyone please contact your representatives in the CA state legislature? I have gotten a reply from the staff of our Assemblyman, who is on the committee with oversight responsibility and will be bringing this to the attention of the committee.
    I told him that we would be willing to accept the 85% increase if we see that the CalPERS executives are taking a commensurate cut in their salaries and bonuses.

  43. Cathy says:

    We purchased CalPers Long Term Care 15 years ago. We paid a higher premium which we were ASSURED would provide inflation protection (5% coverage increase each year) and informed that our premiums would NOT be increased (specifically stated in the brochure).

    In 2010, they not only increased our premiums 20% plus, but added ANNUAL 5% premium increase (defeating the inflation protection). When we called to complain then, we were told they misjudged payouts but had paid for professional actuaries so the current increase should definitely cover the difference.

    Last month we received a notice of an 85% INCREASE in our policy… with no guarantees that they would not increase even more if they found out that wasn’t enough. How could there be such a huge increase only 2 years from their “updated” projections? This shows complete incompetency in the management of this trust – and apparently it is only the beneficiaries who have to pay the damages.

    During this time several Board Members have been indicted for illegal activities in the fund. Their portfolio contained bad investments which suffered even more during the crash.

    Having to pay almost 300% more with this ADDITIONAL 85% increase than when we started when we (and many others) are retired and on fixed income is appalling. CalPers is hoping people will cancel either cancel their policies and lose all their prior premiums (in ours and others cases over $50,000), or drastically reduce our coverage to a fixed maximum term. And IF their projected percentage of beneficiaries do not cancel or reduce their term, there will be ANOTHER increase.

    This is clearly a bait-and-switch FRAUD. Where are the regulations that allow this to happen? If their initial promises are worthless and unlimited premium increases are not illegal, why should anyone buy long-term care insurance?

  44. Kathleen H. says:

    There is not much that I can add to the intelligent, clear and concise comments made by Cathy and everyone else who shares my outrage over CalPers long term care insurance fraud. Of course, I would have never taken out this dreadful policy, had I known the truth, which was initially well hidden, about future premium increases. I wish I would have put the money in Apple! Hindsight!

    My question is what do I do now? Of course there is no way I can afford the 85% increase and all the future increases. So, should I just give up and lose the $20,000+ dollars that I unknowingly put into a ponzi scheme? Or, do I agree to significantly reduced coverage that will cost the same as my current coverage? Undoubtedly, Calpers will continue to raise the premiums on these less than desirable policies. So, in the near future, I will be in the same situation as I am now. Of course, I could look for another company to provide long term care insurance. But that would cost significantly more since I am ten years older than when I took out the original policy.

    Needless to say, but I will say it anyway, this situation has been caused by the sheer incompetence and stupidity of those making the decisions. Couldn’t they foresee the obvious: that since California’s senior population is growing and living longer it will need more long term care which will increase costs? Why did they tell us that there would be no increases when we bought the policies? I know that there are so many questions that will be left unanswered.

    I will now contact my State legislator.

  45. Steve Kawai says:

    The 2015 LTC Program premium increase is by design, mostly. The program funding issue was created by the CalPERS Board of Administration. Ask your friendly CalPERS Board members for copies of the Long Term Care Program Strategic Plans and minutes of the discussions of those LTC Strategic Plans during closed Health Benefits Committee and Pensions and Health Benefits Committee meetings. The period of interest should be from 2006 to today.

    If they provide them, please share as I have no friends on the CalPERS Board.

  46. Donna Buck says:

    Rather than wring our hands, we need to (all of us!) call and send letters to our representatives, get news coverage, and insist that our representatives require only reasonable increases. I am not old enough for the 10 year period to help; women live often into their eighties, so unless I am incapacitated within the 10 year period, I, like many women, are out of luck. Administration is banking on our giving up. This is reprehensible, and we need to get our legislators to look into whether it is legal. Did not the statements we made when signing up create a binding agreement? What legal recourse do we have? Anyone out there with a legal background who can recommend recourse?

  47. Steve Kawai says:

    Sometimes the solution to a problem is obvious. In the case of the CalPERS Long Term Care Program, the affect is premium increases. The cause is the CalPERS Board of Administration members’ failure to ensure the sound administration of the program. Worst, the failure of the member elected Board members to act in the best interests of their constituents. In the past three years, not one of the six elected board members has questioned staff recommendations or voted against the staff proposals for the LTC Program, on increases in copays for medical services and prescription drugs, and on decreasing coverage for certain medical services.

    Active and retired CalPERS members have been financially hurt by the failure of their elected representatives to act on their behalf. The solution to our problem is to elect Board members who represent us. Today, a former employee of CalPERS with seven years experience in the Office of Long Term Care announced his candidacy for election to Seat B in the CalPERS Board of Administration election. He admits that costly mistakes were made by implementing the LTC Program with minimal underwriting standards and verification of enrollment health statements; but he is not convinced of the need to force LTC Program members to lower their coverage benefits (that is what this premium increase is real0y about).

    The candidate’s name is Harvey Robinson, and he is the President of the Retired Public Employees Association, RPEA. RPEA is the only active or retired CalPERS members organization that actively advocates for CalPERS members at the CalPERS Committees and Full-Board meetings. (You can verify my claim by listening to and/or viewing the tapes of the CalPERS Health Benefits Committee, the Pensions and Health Benefits Committee and the full-Board meetings in the CalPERS Website.) We need Harvey Robinson because of his expertise and knowledge of the LTC Program, and we need another candidate for Seat A in this election. The solution to the mismanagement of the LTC Program and the shifting of health care costs to the members is to elect new members to the Board of Administration. This will mean that we have to support the candidates with our time and money to enable them to compete against the candidates that will be supported by the unions.

  48. Jennifer Rellar says:

    For more than 12 years my husband and I have carried the top tier “Cadillac” plan offered through CalPERS’ LTC coverage. The costs have been hefty and we have sacrificed to keep our plans active and unchanged. Our choice to pre pay for LTC to reduce our future costs for future skilled or at home “professional care givers” has allowed us feel more at ease with growing older and to help with LTC costs for those uncertainties that life throws our way. We do not count on others to be there for us. If/when the the need arises, having kids diapering and spoon feeding us is not an option!

    Now it seems our long term planning mistake was a big one! We, like thousand of others of you, chose the wrong LTC insurance provider. As retired Contra Costa County law enforcement personnel for both of us coming to believe in the doing the right and responsible thing, like planning for your future needs, came naturally. Before signing up for this insurance we researched the options and decided CalPERS and the State of California was a safe bet. Now, we feel that at it’s best this insurance program has been sorely mismanaged and that civil action is warranted. It’s no wonder that when it comes to long term planning the masses choose to just wait and see…and play the shell gamed to hide their holdings when the time comes for skilled nursing care.

    For us, the prospect of having to pay $40K plus annually for the status quo LTC policy is, well, I would best describe as a “luxury” tax we cannot afford. Hence, for us “rich” retired government workers we’ll just have to see how the Obama Health Care BILL will cover our long term care/skilled nursing home needs when the time comes. Yah Right!

    Lastly, and most importantly, where are the voices of our California legislative folks. Clearly, it has been known for a long time and shown over the last years that this LTC program will not sustain it’s promises for the tens of thousand California workers and retirees. ACT NOW! Stop the bleeding now! Our representative Ms. Bonilla along with her peers must act to make sure that this insurance scheme ends. I would hope that those policy holders who currently receive care through their LTC benefits will continue to do so [Such carrying cost should dwindle rapidly based on CalPERS' life expectancy figures for folks who are in care facilities]. If folks only live for three or so years what’s the deal, shouldn’t the monies being paid into the fund and the actual and expected earned interest be enough to sustain the fund without annual 5% increases and the expected 85% premium increase. [Who's following the money trail? Are LTC funds being diverted into other CalPER's liability funds]. An outside audit maybe warranted.

    Next, immediate satisfaction should be given to all those who paid into this program, e.g., all those whose policy was in-effect for one (1) year or more and for those with a current/active policy. These folks should receive a policy cancellation notice along with a premium refund check equal to 85% of their entire premiums paid to date using the initial contract date as a starting point. Interest of 3% should be included. Any monies remaining in the CalPERs’ LTC insurance fund should be held in trust for those still receiving direct care/LTC benefits until their death or the expiration termination date of their policy, which ever comes first.

    Only after all compensation has been paid should the policy holders be given cancelation notices and the CalPERS’ LTC program dissolved. Short of these suggestions and actions-
    PLEASE SIGN ME UP FOR ANY CLASS ACTION SUIT IN THIS MATTER. [email protected]

  49. Steve Kawai says:

    Up to June 2012, the revenues from premiums and investment earnings always exceeded expenses. Starting in July 2012, CalPERS reduced LTC funds investments in equities from 44% to 15% to ensure lower investment earnings; they call it a conservative investment strategy. This decision lowers the discount rate to 5.25% (or lower) to support raising most premiums 85%. I was told that in their “finalist” interview for the current TPA contract, Univita stated that their objective for this contract period was to clear out enrollees in comprehensive plans. I think that our LTC Program has been converted to a cash cow for Univita, because whenever I argued against premium increases and the “conservative” investment strategy, I received the same old bulls__t.

    It would be helpful if other organizations representing active and retired public employees would join RPEA in arguing against the management of the LTC Program. One small organization was unable to stop the deterioration of the program while other organization representatives just sat quietly at CalPERS. It is sad to say: RPEA is the ONLY organization whose officers and committee members argue against shifting health care costs to CalPERS members as well as the destruction of the original Long Term Care Program.

  50. Tracey says:

    I am disgusted with Cal Pers Long Term Care program. I feel I have been wronged and frauded. I feel like such an idiot for signing up for this program in 2004. Please sign me up for any class action law suit too.

  51. Charlotte Brevard says:

    I signed up for this program with San Bernardino County in 1995. I feel everyone who signed up for the Lifetime best coverage is being punished. Yes, I am going to opt for the 10 year plan. Who can afford an 85% increase no matter how many years they spread it out. I am 77 and in good health so far. Sign me up for the Class Action suit also.

  52. Nancy says:

    I signed up in 1997, and, like Charlotte, I feel betrayed. Are there any repercussions to those who betrayed us so badly? They should go to jail. The Board was not “happy” about their unanimous decision? Is that the best they could do?
    Is there an organized group that I can join to help?

  53. Bob giannini says:

    We were promised a lie. Being in the Educator as my career, I can not believe this is the way to treat people. I would have been fired if I ran my school this way. They are forcing most of us on a fixed income to the 10 year plan. Does anyone out there care about this?

    This feels like a bait and switch plan.

    Is there a class action law suit in the works? Does anyone have a successful lawyer with a heart that can help us?

    Those in most need will be in the poorest position.

    Shame on them…….

    Betrayed is how it feels.

  54. Quick Brown Fox says:

    At the very least, the California Legislature should call for a public investigation of the CalPERS Long Term Care Program to determine what really happened in the program, from its inception to the present time. Ideally, the Attorney General’s Office should lead the investigation. If any corruption or other criminal acts are found, the AG’s Office could forth indictments.

    Policyholders deserve to know exactly how and why they are being fleeced. An investigation will bring all the relevant facts to light.

  55. Fran says:

    For this drastic action to have taken place, the entire program had to have been mismanaged from the start. My husband and I have been paying into this since the first year it was offered, thinking we were doing our children a favor by ensuring we would not be a burden to them in our old age. Now that we’re being pushed out of the program because their mismanagement has made it unaffordable, not only will we be a burden on our children, we’ll also be about $33,000 poorer!
    We want in on the class action lawsuit. Someone has to fight these people.

  56. Steve Kawai says:

    CalPERS members have elected three, new CalPERS Board of Administration members in the past 3 1/2 years. They have encouraged and supported (voted) the CalPERS Executive staff’s efforts to purge enrollees out of the LTC plans that provide lifetime coverage and inflation protection. The 2010 premium increase of 22% plus annual 5% per year increases for the “Cadillac” plan failed to “shock” 10% of plan members to lapse out of the insurance program. In my opinion, starting in the Fall of 2010, CalPERS started developing a strategy to get our attention, a big increase to force members down or out; they do not care which as long as they could secure the $3.5 billion LTC investment fund for future third-party administrator expenses and benefits without any effort or diligence. Once they nailed down alternative downgrade plans, they decided on the increase, 84% to 86%, which was announced to the Constituents meeting members at their meeting the week before the April 2012 CalPERS Pensions and Health Benefits Committee Meeting; this committee’s minutes and video should be available in the CalPERS website.

    Last Tuesday, May 7, the Assembly Committee on Aging and Long Term Care Insurance conducted a hearing to listen to our complaints as well as Ann Boynton, the CalPERS who heads the LTC Program. The bottom line is the Legislature has no oversight or regulatory standing over CalPERS; so, that can only question and/or advise on CalPERS administered programs. At the end of the 3 hour 46 minute hearing, the committee told the audience that they would circulate a petition in the Assembly asking that the action period be extended for those LTC members who must decide by the end of May. During the two Public Comment periods, I asked that the program be moved to another department. If you care to see some of the hearing video (you can fast forward), here is the link:
    http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2013/05/watch-the-calpers-long-term-care-hearing.html

    Please, do not vote for any of the incumbents in the CalPERS elections for the next three years.

  57. gary says:

    I bought the policy at 50 and am now 71. The older I get, I realize that most of the things I was told by most everyone on anything was either overstated or was just plain wrong… this being one of them

  58. gary says:

    Whoops, forgot to ask,, any consensus on the best way to go on the choices

  59. gail filbin says:

    My husband cousins friends all signed up to take our problems we would face in old age off our children’s shoulders since we all took care of our mothers fathers aunts uncles. Etc noe after 23 yrs I have to say to my family I do not have the care dad provided for me. Maybe I should spend everything and go on welfare quit paying taxes they sure will not put me in jail the state would have to take care of me bye the bye how many people that work at Otc pay for it when @ hoe much did they receive in raises lest year I am tiredof being cheated everytime I turn around I will join any class action as will all my family

  60. gary says:

    OK, so the rationale is that few people will need lthc longer than ten years,, if that is true, why the rush to judgement to make lifetime care so expensive if so few people will use it??? Low investment returns??? Only because the thieves of wall street took their pound of flesh…They will be back making high returns again…Not that I am happy a bout dealings with the devil that got us into this…It would be more honest to say “we gotcha ya and nothing you can do about it”.

  61. Bob Logan says:

    Sounds like everyone is in on a lawsuit but no one knows what the next step is. Getting together a war chest sounds about right to me. I am willing to look into opening a savings account to pay for legal expenses. If you Google Logan Case Co. you will find my contact info. Please do not send money until we can figure out how to do this. I have contacted my State Assembly person- they are all too scared to get out in front of this issue. We need to do it ourselves. Let’s get busy!

  62. Rick Anchan says:

    My wife has had the plan since 1997. She is 63. We have paid in about $27000 to date. I was also upset and asked for a copy of the policy and ran the numbers.

    If you don’t use the plan,(death)you get all premiums back at 65 (100%), diminishing to 0 at 75. She would be provided roughly $7500 a month for care.
    I ran the numbers. We would get all premium cost back with 4 months of care. Realize this discounts the investment income from our premiums. Still looks like a solid investment for insurance. I think they dramatically underestimated the increased cost of long term care and, like all of us, had lousy returns in their investments the last ten years. None of like to eat these kind of increases but I am not certain they have much choice. For now we are staying the course and will re evaluate in 12 months, like they said you could.

  63. Cindy Fellows says:

    I have written letters and been on the phone with them regarding my husbands coverage. They sent him a letter stating he would be receiving the same materials that I received to change his option. He never received anything. He was told in a reply and on the phone that he was not subject to the 85% increase even though the letter stated that he was. Then in another phone call he was told that he was subject to the increase. I did receive paperwork with option and was offered the 10 year plan which substantially lowered my premiums however my husband who has inflation coverage but not lifetime coverage has now been told he cannot change his option until 2015! Seems like a scam to make him pay high premiums for 2 more years. We have had so many communications with these people and have received so many different answers that we have no idea what’s really going on nor do they. A class-action suit would be a most wonderful thing. If I wasn’t caring for an elderly family member I would pursue this issue however I hope someone out there has the ways and means to do something about this.

  64. Belinda says:

    Since this entire plan is funded by us, suing with a class action suit doesn’t make sense. I hope I never need this insurance but I don’t understand why people are outraged that investments have not done well. My house is worth about half of what I paid for it…..$100,000 down the drain in a couple years. Why do you think an insurance company would be exempt from the rest of the economy? Class Action? That’s just taking more out of the entire fund….which is our money. You’d just be kicking yourself….again. The insurance company only has the money we put in. What money do you think the managers will use to fight the class action suit?

  65. Cindy Fellows says:

    Belinda, your comments are quite apropos. I never thought of it that way. My main issue with them is that they won’t let my husband change his option until 2015 thus collecting a large amount of money from him for the next two years. They have yet to explain to me why we received the exact same letter I did stating that he would receive future communications allowing him to change his option. Within a couple of months I received paperwork to change my option but he has never received anything and then we are told he must wait until 2015. I still think it’s just a tactic to collect more money from him and others like him. All in all this is very frustrating.

  66. Dorothy Lochner says:

    In 1995 I signed up for the long term program for lifetime, inflation and paid dearly for all these years (18). Now that I am 80 years old but still
    living independently I have been priced out of these guarantees. Now on my
    limited income I can only afford six years of coverage and when the 85% raise kicks in I will probably lose everything. Is it any wonder people are
    losing their faith in organizations, political leaders,etc. In this country we used to be able to trust people in positions of leadership but sadly, not anymore. I believe a crime has been committed against those of us who have
    been in the program since its inception but who will fight for us? Thanks
    CalPers for the insecurity of my future!

  67. John Jones says:

    Please add my name to the list of folks who want to pursue a class action lawsuit against CalPERS regarding the Long Term Care Program. Whether it is 100% funded by participants or not, they have some legal responsibility in this matter. I look at the original package of materials I received from them when I joined 14 years ago and believed all the hype about “getting in while you’re young to keep your rates lower” What a bunch of hogwash. My wife and I have tens of thousands of dollars in the guaranteed inflation protected program and are now having to change to limited coverage. It’s obvious to me that CalPERS bailed on its responsibility to CalPERS members regarding this program.

    • Alice Toreson says:

      Please add my name to the list of folks who want to pursue a class action lawsuit against CalPERS regarding the Long Term Care Program. I joined in 1999 for the life time policy at a rate that would not increase well it has so I took the option 2 Reduced to 6-Year Benefit Period because I could not afford the increase. of the Life Time Policy. I thought with the Inflation Protection the premium would not change Well to my surprise it did change.

  68. Bob says:

    Does anyone know if the CA Department of Insurance can help in this situation? Or are we stuck with the CalPERS board’s decision and the options they’ve given us? I’ve been in the program for about 15 years. Are there any state attorneys who signed up for this that can help lead a class action lawsuit? I’m so disgusted (as you can tell).

  69. Yansa M.Toussaint says:

    I am 53 years old and was wondering if CalPERS has an insurance policy for retirees but after reading about CalPERS stiffed retirees who purchased their long term care plan I was wondering would it even be worth it.

  70. Steve Kawai says:

    CalPERS plans to open enrollment for the LTC Program in December 2013. The lawsuit may alter that plan. If there is an open enrollment, it is essential that all interested and eligible parties enroll, because there may not be another opportunity to enroll in either the CalPERS or any other LTC insurance plan for a long time. Since premiums are usually based on age, it is advantageous to enroll while you eligible because of age, health and the other eligibility requirements. Of course, you should compare costs, benefits and administrative histories of the all plans before enrolling.

    Harvey Robinson, a candidate for Seat B in the CalPERS election, is the only person who will represent LTC Program members at CalPERS. Yes, Harvey is enrolled in the LTC Program; not one of the current, 13 Board of Administration members is in the program.

  71. Henry W Miller says:

    Would like to receive follow-up comments by email.

    • Gretchen Saaduddin says:

      Does anyone know what is going on with our CalPers LTC? I cannot believe after all the phone calls and emails I have heard nothing…no papers to sign, no further letters since the original. This is indeed devastating. If any of you baby boomers are dealing with elder care issues with your parents, then you know what horrific things are being done to our seniors! They are being disposed of, and you have to go to the hospital, stay with them and supervise. The same with skilled nursing facilities. Miss one day, and your parent will be drugged and dehydrated, and totally confused as a consequence of this” sin of omission” . We are currently paying $9000.00 per month for do it yourself care at a well known facility for my father. We are next folks, ala Soylent Green, the original Agenda 21 document handed out at the United Nations meeting in Brazil ( which has been redacted greatly). This is actually happening right now – population reduction. As far as I know, this underfunding fiasco may also be a part of the plan using what my husband called “careful carelessness” to explain why supposed smart people can make these ” mistakes” ( which in actuality is criminal activity).

News Archive

Archive By Categories
  • Budget and Finance
  • Education
  • Health care
  • Infrastructure
  • Inside Government
  • Life in California
  • Politics and Elections
  • Regulations
  • Rights and Liberties
  • Waste, Fraud and Abuse