The Bee chastised the CalPERS board for not supporting its own staff's recommendation to implement "regional pricing." Had the board followed this advice, next-door neighbors belonging to CalPERS, one working for a public agency and the other for the state, would have paid different premiums for the same health insurance policy. Cost controls, not burdening a designated group with higher prices, is the answer.

Two years ago CalPERS attempted to implement "regional rating," which would have set premiums by regions to encourage HMOs to maintain their coverage in rural counties. It was roundly denounced. Now, under the regional pricing proposal, Northern California CalPERS members would pay higher premiums than their Southern California counterparts. The only groups exempt from this scheme would be state employees and annuitants.

Whether it's called regional pricing or regional rating, the result is the same: Employees receiving the same benefits would be charged different premiums based upon their address or their employer, and not because they receive more benefits or a higher quality of services.
It's true that if a large number of Southern California public agencies were to leave CalPERS, as has been threatened, premiums could be driven drastically upward. However, we are not convinced that would happen since that would be a shortsighted gesture that ignores self-interest. The CalPERS board should be applauded for not succumbing to such self-serving threats.

Group insurance was developed to pool resources and blend varied risk so that health insurance would be more affordable and available to a greater number of individuals. With it, a small percentage receives the most benefits; the rest should be thankful they are in good health.

For example, retirees need more medical care and will naturally access their benefits more frequently. It is not fair to penalize them for this. If regional pricing had been adopted for determining premiums based on regional costs, why wouldn't this logic extend to retirees who cost more -- to individuals who suffer a heart attack, say, or to the employee who delivered a premature baby?

A reasonable person can see how group insurance would quickly evaporate.

The CalPERS board approved establishing a "rural task force." This good idea must become a top priority, so that the 400-pound gorilla can focus its attention on bringing costs under control rather than simply shifting unfair pricing to a select group.

Public employees living in Northern California are not less healthy than their counterparts in the Southland and should not be penalized because health-care providers have created monopolies that have destroyed competition and allowed them to command higher fees.

The CalPERS board has a legal responsibility to protect the interest of all CalPERS members and annuitants; they did just that by giving this unfair idea the heave-ho.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald wrote this in response to The Bee's editorial "The 400-pound gorilla / CalPERS can't cope with health care costs," which appeared May 17. She is a business agent for the Sutter/Yuba County Employees Association, which is affiliated with Public Employees Union Local No. 1, an independent, member-owned union with 15,000 members in Northern California.