►
From YouTube: 12/14/2022 - Interim Retirement and Benefits Committee
Description
This is the second meeting of calendar year 2022. Please see agenda for details.
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
Good
morning,
I
would
like
to
call
the
meeting
on
interim
retirement
and
benefits
committee
to
order
on
December
14th
good
morning
to
all
of
those
that
represent
us
here
in
Las
Vegas
and
in
Carson
City,
as
well
as
those
online
with
us,
chair,
Monroe
Moreno
is
attending
virtually
and
has
asked
has
asked
that
I
chair
this
meeting
today,
so
Mr
Weber.
Will
you
please
call
the
roll.
A
C
A
A
Lastly,
I
do
not
plan
on
taking
a
lunch
break
today,
hoping
that
we're
done
prior
to
that
we'll
move
quickly
through
the
agenda
until
we're
done
so.
The
first
piece
on
the
agenda
is
our
public
comment,
so
we'll
move
to
agenda
item
number
two.
This
is
the
first
period
of
public
comment.
There
will
be
another
one
at
the
end
of
the
meeting
due
to
time
considerations.
Each
person
will
be
provided
two
minutes
to
speak.
A
A
Nine
zero
five,
eight,
seven,
nine
six,
zero
and
then
press
pound
when
prompted
for
the
participant
ID.
Please
press
it.
Please
I'm!
Sorry,
please,
press
pound!
The
calling
information
is
also
provided
on
the
agenda
for
today's
meeting.
So
I'll
begin
with
public
comment
here
in
Las
Vegas.
Is
there
anyone
here
who
would
like
to
give
public
comment.
A
E
You
Kent
Irvin
k-e-n-t-e-r-v-I-n
State,
president
Nevada
faculty
Alliance
good
morning,
chair
Monroe,
Moreno,
chair
dondero,
Loop
and
committee
members.
The
state
of
Nevada
is
in
the
midst
of
an
employment
crisis.
Agencies
across
the
state,
including
the
Nevada
system
of
higher
education,
have
extraordinarily
High
vacancies
rates
and
we
cannot
fill
positions.
It
has
come
to
the
point
where
central
government
services
cannot
be
provided.
E
Compensation
and
benefits
for
state
employees,
including
energy
faculty
staff,
are
not
competitive
as
a
result
of
years
of
neglect.
After
the
Great
Recession
state
employees
were
hit
with
furloughs
pay
cuts
and
cuts
to
benefits.
Those
have
not
been
further
restored
by
the
time
of
the
pandemic,
when
state
employees
were
again
hit
with
furloughs
and
drastic
cuts
to
health
care
benefits.
E
E
E
E
I
have
more
comments
about
the
per
system,
but,
given
the
time
limits,
I'll
put
those
in
writing
with
the
economic
Forum
increasing
the
budget
by
over
2
billion
compared
with
the
current
biennium.
It
is
time
to
treat
state
employees
as
the
dedicated
public
servants.
They
are,
so
they
can
provide
full
service
to
Citizens.
Thank
you.
A
F
G
Hi,
my
name
is
Sheila
and
I
would
like
to
play
it's
about
s-h-e-I-l-a
last
name,
initial
F
and
chair
Senator,
Don
Dara,
Loop,
Sarah,
Monroe
Marina.
Thank
you
for
taking
my
comments
today,
I'll
be
as
quick
as
I
can
here
and
stay
under
the
two
minutes.
G
My
comment
is
on
the
pep
plan
to
implement
a
cancer
concierge
Coe
Network
I'm
writing
today,
to
express
my
concern
on
recent
pep
board
meeting
decisions
and
on
the
general
lack
of
transparency
and
concern
for
the
Health
and
Welfare
of
seriously
ill
state
employees
and
retirees
everything
always
comes
down
to
how
can
pebs
save
money
despite
the
fact
that
there's
been
Health
Care
funds
subsidies
the
last
few
years
requiring
Pub
to
do
more
work
to
determine
how
to
spend
them
down.
G
The
pep
board
continues
to
limit
employee
choices
in
health
care,
all
in
the
name
of
lowering
costs
by
way
of
background
I'm,
a
cancer
survivor
and
one
of
the
approximately
1500
have
participants
reported
as
having
utilized
cancer
Services.
According
to
the
recent
pep
board
meeting
presented
earlier
this
month.
In
my
experience
once
again,
pep
is
brought
to
the
board
and
voted
on
plan
changes
without
truly
considering
the
impact
it
has
on
the
many
participants
who
are
fighting
for
their
life
to
catch,
treat,
contain
and
eradicate
the
serious
illness.
G
Cancer
diagnosis
help
past
pep
thought
about
surveying
the
people
dealing
with
this
horrendous
diagnosis
to
see
what
their
thoughts
are
on.
What
is
being
considered
at
these
pep
board
meetings
to
contain
the
costs
for
life-saving
life-saving
treatment,
specifically,
the
pep
board
recently
discussed
and
voted
on
implementing
a
cancer
concierge
Coe
Network
earlier
this
month,
but
the
goal
of
saving
one
to
two
million
dollars
annually
in
Pub
board
materials.
There
wasn't
any
information
provided
on
how
this
concierge
service
will
impact
participant
choices
and
Provider,
Services
or
Force
oncology.
Doctor
changes
for
existing
employee
retirees
Etc.
G
In
fact,
pep
did
not
even
commit
to
going
out
to
RFP
to
find
the
best
center
of
excellence
provider.
So
peps
going
to
limit
the
choices,
participants
have
to
exercise
their
PPO
Insurance
rights
to
see
the
providers
they
feel
can
best
support
their
serious
illness
diagnosis
while
rushing
to
implement
this
high-level
cancer
concierge
Savings
Program.
As
outlined
in
the
materials
just
for
the
record
concierge,
as
defined
as
a
definition
in
the
Cambridge
English
dictionary,
someone
who
was
employed
in
a
hotel,
private
club
or
similar
place
to
help
guests
in
anything,
they
need.
G
G
Yes
into
the
either
definition,
it
does
not
I'm
sure
the
service
will
be
focused
on
supporting
members
like
myself,
who
pay
over
900
a
month
in
premium
for
the
pep
low
deductible
service
would
limit
the
places
I
can
go
for
ongoing
monitoring
future
testing.
How
does
this
Nationwide
PPO
and
choices
keep
getting
fewer
and
fewer
I
picked
a
PPO,
because
I
wanted
to
research.
G
The
doctors
are
best
for
what
they
do
instead
I'm
once
again
getting
going
to
be
left
waiting
to
see
how
this
change
will
impact
me
just
like
when
Aetna
signature
network
was
dropped
after
a
year
in
contract
in
a
multi-year
contract
last
year.
So
I
cannot
understand
how
these
continuous
changes,
all
in
the
name
of
saving
money,
are
not
looked
at
holistically
from
an
employee,
Health
and
Welfare
perspective
committee.
G
A
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much
just
as
a
reminder.
There
will
be
another
period
at
the
end
of
the
meeting,
so
we
will
go
on
to
the
next
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
agenda,
item
number
three:
the
approval
of
the
minutes
of
February
8th
2022
meeting
members.
A
copy
of
the
draft
minutes
is
included
in
your
meeting
packet.
They
have
also
been
posted
online.
Do
any
members
have
suggested
revisions
or
edits
to
the
draft
minutes.
A
There
are
no
suggested
edits
we
will
move
on
and
with
that
I
would
entertain
a
motion
to
approve
the
minutes
of
February
8
2022
meeting
of
the
interim
retirement
and
benefits
committee.
So.
A
A
A
All
right,
we'll
now
move
on
to
the
main
part
of
today's
agenda.
Today,
we'll
hear
a
presentation
for
both
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
and
the
public
employees
benefit
program.
We'll
begin
with
agenda
item
four:
the
public
employees
benefits
program
to
present
the
agenda
item.
We
have
here
today:
Laura
Rich,
executive
officer
of
the
public
employees
benefits
program,
Ms
Rich,
please
introduce
those
who
you've
brought
with
you
and
begin
when
you
are
ready.
Thank
you
very
much
for
joining
us
here
in
Las,
Vegas.
H
Foreign
good
morning,
Madam,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee,
I
am
Laura
Rich
executive
officer
of
the
public
employees
benefits
program
with
me
today.
I
have
MS
Carrie
Eaton,
who
is
the
Chief
Financial
Officer
of
pebb.
We
are
here
today
to
present
a
plethora
of
information
regarding
the
public
employees.
H
Benefits
program
on
the
agenda
today
is
a
presentation
of
the
audited
financial
statements
of
the
program,
as
well
as
utilization
reports,
a
some
coverage
on
our
Communications
for
the
program
and
the
biannual
certified
Actuarial
valuation
by
the
our
Actuarial
Consultants,
as
well
as
the
biennial
review
of
the
program.
Compliance
review.
H
In
addition
to
that,
those
are
the
reports
that
are
required
by
Statute.
We
have
also,
in
the
past
past
couple
years,
have
presented
an
additional
report
on.
This
is
all
retrospective
reports.
We
are
presenting
an
additional
report
on
what
is
to
come,
so
the
what
the
board
has
approved
moving
forward
for
the
for
the
plan
year
that
is
coming.
H
That
starts
on
July
1st,
so
we
thought
that
was
that's
been
very
beneficial
for
this
Committee
in
the
past,
just
to
not
unders
to
not
only
get
what
has
happened
in
the
past,
but
also
what
is
happening
moving
forward.
H
We
do
offer
medical
dental
vision
and
basic
life
as
part
of
the
basic
package.
We
also
offer
voluntary
benefits
too.
So
what
I
mean
by
voluntary
benefits
is
there
are
buy
up
life
insurance
policies
that
we
offer
long-term
disability
accident
and
critical
illness
Vision
things
like
that
that
we
offer
even
home
and
auto
insurance.
You
can
get
that
through
our
platform
and
we
have
group
rated
offerings
through
the
pet
program.
H
Our
funding
is
it's
it.
We
get
funding
in
two
different
ways,
so
part
of
it,
and
most
of
it
is
the
legislatively
approved
employer
subsidy
as
well
as
the
employee
premiums,
whatever
isn't
covered
by
the
subsidy,
is
covered
by
the
employee
premium.
So
it's
the
it
is
the
the
difference
of
those.
That
is
what
the
employee
pays,
although
pebb
does
not
receive
any
general
fund
dollars.
H
H
We
have
one
additional
offering
that
is
not
a
self-funded
plan
and
when
I
say
let
me
back
up
when
I
say
self-funded.
It
means
that
that
PEB
administers
the
the
plan,
so
premiums
that
are
coming
in
are
funding
the
claims
that
are
being
paid
out
with
the
fully
insured
plans.
These
are
fully
insured
plans
that
are
that
are
offered
through
a
carrier
and
that
are
overseen
by
the
division
of
insurance.
H
The
fully
insured
plan
is
an
HMO,
and
that
is
offered
in
the
south
and
offered
by
health
plan
of
Nevada.
Additionally,
for
our
retirees
on
Medicare,
we
offer
a
Medicare
exchange.
This
is
a
an
exchange
where
retirees
can
purchase
plans
or
enroll
in
Medicare
plans
through
the
Medicare
exchange,
and
we
provide
them.
The
program
provides
some
hras,
a
health
reimbursement
accounts
based
on
their
years
of
service
up
to
20
years.
Those
hras
are
meant
to
pay
for
those
medicare
premiums
or
any
kind
of
out-of-pocket
expenses
that
retirees
do
experience,
Health,
Care,
related
expenses.
H
So
I'm
going
to
start
out
with
some
information
based
on
the
the
most
recent
action
taken
by
the
board
at
our
December
5th
PEB
board.
Meeting
I'll
start
out
with
some
background
in
2022.
The
pep
board
voted
to
utilize,
excess
cash,
so
excess
cash
is,
is
any
cash
that
has
not
been
that
is
over
and
Beyond
any
of
our
required
Reserve
categories.
H
Much
of
the
excess
cash
that
we've
that
we've
had
has
resulted
due
to
members
deferring
care
throughout
the
pandemic.
So
during
the
closures,
the
shutdowns
and
even
after
in
general,
people
were
not
accessing
care
like
they
used
to.
You
know
they
were
putting
off
elective
surgeries.
H
Things
like
that,
and
so
many
health
plans
did
see
a
a
reduction
in
the
claims
that
they
were
paying
out,
and
so
the
pep
board
did
vote
to
restore
benefits
that
were
cut
in
2020
by
using
the
excess
cash
that
the
program
had,
in
addition
to
the
excess
reserves
that
were
earmarked
for
the
restoration
of
benefits.
There
are
other
several
several
other
expenditures
that
were
included
in
our
budget
as
well
to
restore
certain
things
such
as
the
HRA
reimbursements
to
retirees.
H
Leadership
got
together
and
put
together
a
short
survey
to
really
look
at
what
is
it
that
employees
find
important
not
just
in
benefits
but
in
wages
and
in
the
whole
compensation
package,
and
so
I
was
given
permission
to
share
this
with
the
pep
board
and
I
felt
like
it
was
helpful
for
the
pep
board
to
understand
what
these
responses
looked
like
from
from
state
employees.
H
H
What
I
do
want
to
point
out
is
that
there's
two
questions
here
that
I
chose
to
highlight
the
first
one
is
just
overall
about
employees
and
what
they
found
important
in
as
an
employee
and
obviously
I
think
it's
expected
higher
wages
and
salary
by
far
was
the
most
important
quality
or
benefit
that
people
rated.
H
The
second
one
was
lower
health
insurance
premiums,
which
I
personally
was
a
a
little
surprised
with,
because
we
had
recently
presented
to
the
PEB
board
a
comparison
of
premiums
within
we
compared
PEB
with
other
state
and
local
governments
in
Nevada,
and
our
premiums
were
very
similar
to
to
what
other
public
employers
are
offering
their
employees
I.
Think
the
difference
here
is
that
state
employees,
their
wages,
are
much
lower
than
some
of
these.
These
you
know
local
governments,
and
so
the
relationship
between
the
wage
and
the
premiums
there's
a
disparity
there.
H
Additionally,
there
were
some
other
items
that
ranked
High
employer
matched
457.
Contributions
was
was
high
up
there,
more
robust
health
benefits.
Question
four
was
specifically
about
pep
and
again
Lower
health
insurance
premiums
was
ranked
the
highest.
That
was
what
people
wanted
the
most
in
lower
deductibles,
so
lower
deductibles,
lower
out-of-pockets.
Those
are
first
dollar
expenses
and
so
I
think
what
we
took
away
here
is
that
you
people
want
more
money
in
their
pockets.
It's
not
only
just
in
wages
but
in
in
a
lower
Health
premiums
and
lower
deductibles
things
like
that.
H
H
So
the
first
item
that
the
PEB
board
chose
to
approve
was
an
additional
HRA
or
HSA
health
reimbursement
account
or
Arrangement,
and
health
savings
account
one-time
contribution
for
all
active
state
employees.
So
this
was
only
for
the
actives,
not
for
the
retirees.
There
was
a
sense
that
actives,
because
actives
contributed
to
most
of
that
excess.
H
The
the
board
wanted
that
to
be
directed
back
to
the
active
employees,
and
so
the
board
actually
approved
a
range
between
300
and
350
dollars.
Contribution
to
be
made
on
July
1st
of
2023
I
think
we're
leaning
more
towards
350,
depending
on
the
population
on
the
enrollment
I,
think
we're
going
to
be
able
to
get
to
that
350
mark,
and
so
anyone
on
the
high
deductible
plan
is
eligible
for
an
HSA.
Those
folks
will
get
an
additional
350
dollars
in
addition
to
their
600
HSA
contribution
that
comes
with
that
plan.
H
Already
anybody
on
any
of
the
other
plans,
so
the
low
deductible
EPO
and
HMO
will
be
receiving
a
350
HRA.
The
difference
there
is
that
IRS
guidelines
do
not
allow
for
hsas
on
any
plan
other
than
a
high
deductible
plan,
so
that
one-time
benefit
will
be
distributed,
distributed
on
or
around
July
1st
of
2023
at
the
beginning
of
the
plan
year
to
anyone
enrolled
on
the
plan
at
that
date.
H
The
second
item
here
is
the
so
we've
had
a
fifteen
hundred
dollar
annual
limit
on
our
Dental
annual
maximum
benefit
limit
and
that
fifteen
hundred
dollars
has
been
in
place
since
2011..
H
We
did
a
little
bit
of
analysis
and
that
fifteen
hundred
dollars
is
still
in
line
with
industry
standards,
but
many
plans
are
considering
an
increase
to
two
thousand
dollars
just
because
the
cost
of
Health
Care
and
the
cost
of
dental
in
general
are
rising
and
they're
Rising
fast,
and
so
that
the
projected
annual
cost
for
this
is
about
750
000
and
the
board
did
choose
to
raise
that
to
two
thousand
to
that
annual
maximum
limit
to
two
thousand
dollars
a
year.
H
We
also
not
talk
about
this
later
on.
In
a
later
agenda
item.
The
elimination
of
the
annual
benefit
limit
for
Pediatric
Dental
was
was
approved
as
well
as
a
result
of
a
compliance
audit.
Finding.
H
H
Those
are
done
in
centers
of
excellence,
and
so
what
the
plan
does
is
reimburse
travel
for
those
folks
who
have
to
travel
to
a
center
of
excellence
to
receive
those
types
of
services
there.
The
travel
is
reimbursed
at
at
GSA
rates
and
they
so
it's
lodging
and
travel
expenses
meals.
Things
like
that
PEB
does
not
currently
offer
coverage
for
elective
abortions,
but
does
provide
coverage
for
medically
necessary
abortions.
H
H
So
the
projection
is
not
very
much
it's
it's.
The
cost
of
this
is
somewhere
between
twenty
five
thousand
and
fifty
thousand
just
because
of
the
we
project
only
a
handful
of
these
types
of
situations,
but
the
board
did
approve
the
travel
benefit
for
that.
H
They
also
approved
a
weight
loss
program
called
real
appeal.
It's
currently
offered
to
our
HMO
members.
This
is
a
a
really
neat
weight
loss
program
that
helps
those
that,
and
it
really
is
not
limited.
So
it's
you
don't
have
to
have
you
don't
have
to
have
a
diagnosis
of
obesity.
Anyone
can
join
anyone
over
the
age
of
18
can
join
and
it
provides
tools
such
as
food
scales,
weight
scales,
counseling
things
like
that,
and
there
is
a
savings
associated
with
it.
H
Cancer
concierge
is
just
an
enhanced
service
where
members
who
are
diagnosed
with
cancer
can
get
that
extra
hand-holding
that
they
may
need
to
navigate
their
complex
medical
situation
where
you've
got
different
providers
offering
you
know
different
care,
and
you
have
to
coordinate
all
that
care
and
it
can
become
a
lot
of
work
for
someone
who
doesn't
know
how
to
navigate
the
system,
and
so
PEB
is
going
to
RFP
for
this
service.
We
expect
to
be
able
to
to
RFP
and
Implement
by
July
1st.
H
This
is
elective.
It's
some
something
that
anyone
that
is
undergoing
Cancer
Care
can
take
advantage
of.
It
does
not
force
anyone
into
a
into
a
certain
Network,
or
it
really
just
is
extra
hand-holding
for
those
members
and
depending
on
the
the
way
that
this
out
the
outcome
of
the
RFP,
it
could
be
even
potentially
things
like
helping
them,
navigate
their
health
insurance
bills
right
and
what
goes
to
your
deductible
and
what
goes
to
your
out-of-pocket
expenses.
H
There's
a
variety
of
different
levels
of
that.
So
once
we
do
RFP
for
this,
we
will
we'll
have
a
better
idea
of
what
that
service
is
going
to
look
like.
But
the
projected
annual
savings
for
this
is
one
to
two
million
dollars
a
year.
It's
this
is
an
enhancement.
It's
a
it's
a
benefit
for
members.
H
In
addition
to
this,
we
have
the
addition
of
a
medical
travel
program.
Medical
travel
provides
members
again.
This
is
elective,
it's
an
option,
but
it
is
not
a
requirement.
H
So
members
that
might
have
some
kind
of
you
know
surgery
coming
up
where
they
may
be
able
to
have
that
surgery
locally
at
a
local
hospital,
but
they
have
another
option
that
they
may
have
to
travel
for,
but
it's
higher
quality,
lower
cost,
and
so
we've
with
this
service,
you
have
a
provider
who
hand
holds
those
members
through
those
options
and
so
that
they
can
receive
higher
quality,
lower
cost
Services.
If
they
choose
to.
H
Sometimes
you
can
incentivize
these
types
of
programs
where,
if
you
utilize
this
option,
maybe
we
will
reduce
or
eliminate
those
out-of-pocket
costs.
We
haven't
gotten
to
that
point
yet,
but
it
does
not
only
is
this
a
cost
savings
to
the
member?
Obviously,
but
it's
it's
a
cost
savings
to
the
program
too,
with
a
potentially
better
outcome,
because
you're
sending
people
to
centers
of
excellence
that
have
better
outcomes
for
that
certain
type
of
procedure.
H
We've
also
added
hinge
Health,
which
is
a
virtual
musculoskeletal
Physical
Therapy
Program.
This
provides
ongoing
coaching
and
guidance,
it's
something
that
you
use
either
on
your
laptop
or
on
your
phone,
and
it
provides
it's
it's
an
alternative
to
that
in-person
physical
therapy.
H
Again
it
can
be
incentivized
by
reducing
and
eliminating
any
out-of-pocket
costs
for
members,
and
the
annual
savings
is
projected
to
be
1.4
to
2.4
million
dollars
a
year.
Other
states
that
have
put
this
into
place
have
been
very,
very
happy
with
the
results
of
hinge
health
and
so
we're
very
excited
about
potentially
putting
something
like
this
into
place,
especially
knowing
the
provider
shortage
that
we
have
in
in
the
state
of
Nevada.
H
Anything
that
we
can
do
virtually
versus
in
person
just
provides
another
option
for
people,
so
I
think
I'm
going
to
stop
right
there
and
see.
If
there's
any
questions
from
the
committee
before
I
go
on.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
Senator
orange
I'll
go
ahead.
Please.
C
C
H
H
When
she
was
diagnosed
with
cancer,
she
was
she
had
to
go
to
a
GI
specialist.
H
She
had
a
lot
of
difficulty
getting
into
that
specialist,
navigating
the
system
getting
through
what
she
needed
to
do
to
coordinate
that
care.
There
were
many
delays.
H
Those
delays
resulted
in
a
in
worsening
conditions
and
resulted
in
care
that
she
would
not
have
needed
had
she
had
she
been
able
to
get
through
the
system,
navigate
through
the
coordination
of
care
and
receive
those
Services
sooner
than
than
later,
and
as
a
result,
she
ended
up
having
a
lot
of
GI
related
problems
and
surgeries
because
she
did
not
receive
the
care
she
should
have
in
a
timely
manner.
H
So
in
this
situation
you
have
a
team
of
experts
who
are
hand-holding
these
members
through
that
that
episode
of
care
and
coordinating
the
care
between
all
of
the
doctors
providers
aren't
always
talking
to
each
other.
We
would
hope
that
they
would,
but
they
don't,
there's,
there's
siled
services,
and
so
a
lot
of
it
falls
on
the
person
receiving
the
care
to
be
able
to
to
communicate
to
each
of
the
doctors
and
to
be
able
to
to
coordinate
that
care.
And
so
a
lot
of
these
folks
can't
do
it.
And
so
now
you
have
it.
H
This
cancer
concierge
provides
that
extra
level
of
care
to
ensure
that
these
these
members
are
receiving.
These
patients
are
receiving
the
timely
care
that
they
need
and
the
at
locations
that
are
high
quality,
low
cost
if
possible,
and
so
not
only
is
it
a
better
outcome
for
the
member,
but
it
does
result
in
savings
for
the
program,
because
you
are
offsetting
services
that
potentially
you
know
or
you're,
not
offsetting,
but
you
you
are
reducing
the
you
know,
surgeries
and
things
like
that
that
are
necessary
because
of
a
result
of
delayed
care.
C
It
does
thank
you,
chair
and
chair
may
I
have
a
second
question
about
it
absolutely
go
ahead
and
please
secure
on
the
out-of-state
travel
benefits,
so
the
members
can
go
to
the
center
of
excellence.
I
see
the
projection
is
that
perhaps
only
five
to
ten
members
may
use
it
if
I'm
reading
that
correctly,
where
does
that
come
from
and
what,
if
there
are
more
members
that,
let's
say,
need
to
go
to
the
take
a
Cleveland,
Clinic
or
New
York
to
Atlanta
some
Center
of
medical
Excellence?
H
So
far,
Rich
for
the
record
I
think
the
five
to
ten
is
actually
for
the
abortion
care.
So
we're
we're
only
predicting
a
small
number
of
medically
necessary
abortions
that
are
in
areas
where
abortions
or
abortion
services
are
not
readily
available
for
the
actual
medical
travel
benefit.
There's
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
higher
number
I
can't
put
a
number
to
it
off
the
top
of
my
head,
but
it
is
elective
and
so
folks
that
let's
say
that
you
need
a
hip
or
knee
replacement.
H
It's
going
to
be
it's
going
to
trigger
and
you're
going
to
get
that
option
of
hey.
You
could
have
it
at
this
local
hospital.
H
You
could
have
your
knee
or
hip
replacement
at
this
local
hospital,
but
if
you
travel,
maybe
across
state
lines
we're
going
to
pay
for
the
travel
we're
going
to
pay
for
the
lodging
we're
going
to
pay
for
someone
to
go
with
you,
you're
going
to
have
potentially
a
much
better
outcome
because
it's
got
you
know
higher
quality
ratings
and
the
program
is
going
to
then
benefit
as
well,
because
there's
going
to
be
better
discounts,
and
so
that's
how
we're
going
to
realize
those
savings.
Okay,.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Any
additional
questions
here
in
Las
Vegas
online
assemblywoman
Peters
did
I
see
your
hand
up.
Yes,.
I
So
I
was
questions
regarding
the
survey
of
the
user
that
you
conducted
and
first
of
all,
I
was
wondering
if
you
conducted
this
in
consultation
at
all,
with
the
Department
of
administration,
who's,
currently
working
on
the
retention
and
recruitment
project
that
we
funded
through
IFC
a
couple
months
ago.
A
I
Okay,
then,
my
question
had
to
do
with
the
pep
survey
of
users
and
wondering
if
you
conducted
this
income
consultation
with
the
Department
of
administration
at
all,
they've
been
working
on
a
recruitment
and
retention
plan
and
project
that
we
funded
through
IFC
a
little
while
ago.
I
was
just
wondering
if
that
was
a
duplicated
effort
or
if
it
was
in
consultation,.
H
Laura
Rich
for
the
record.
Thank
you
assemblywoman
Peters,
so
this
was.
This
survey
is
actually
not
a
pep
survey.
It
was
a
survey
that
was
a
collective
effort
between
the
department
of
administration
or
dhrm,
which
is
a
a
division
of
the
Department
of
administration,
as
well
as
the
governor's
office
at
purrs
and
peps.
It
was
a
collective
effort,
and
so
no
it
was
it's.
It
was
not
a
duplication
of
of
services
or
you
know
of
efforts.
I
Fantastic
I
love
it
when
we
leverage
our
projects
together.
My
second
question,
if
I
may
is
related
to
some
of
these
added
benefits
for
services
and
and
kind
of
plan
expansion
benefits.
Do
you
conduct
any
kind
of
impact
assessment
for
these
kinds
of
changes
on
your
members.
H
But
we
also
look
at
the
like,
for
example,
hinge
Health
musculoskeletal
conditions
is
I,
believe
the
number
six
on
our
on
our
cost
Bend
for
the
medical.
You
know
for
a
diagnosis
on
the
medical
program,
so
it's
something
that
ranks
pretty
high
in
in
how
much
money
we
are
spending
and
which
also
means
it's
not
just
the
cost
spend.
H
But
it
also
means
that
members
are
are
suffering
from
musculoskeletal
conditions
at
a
pretty
high
rate,
and
so
we
we
try
to
bring
programs
that
address
some
of
this,
not
just
obviously
to
reduce
the
cost
savings
for
the
member,
but
in
all
of
these
programs,
there's
an
additional
benefit
to
the
member
as
well.
All
of
these
are
an
enhancement,
we're
not
limiting
services,
so
we're
not
directing
folks
to
a
certain
provider
or
certain
Network.
I
Yeah
I
noticed
that
pregnancy
related
issues
for
one
of
the
higher
cost
issues
that
your
members
have
dealt
with
and
I
didn't
see.
Any
of
your
changes
addressing
any
of
those
issues.
So
I'd
be
curious.
If
you
have
any
kind
of
reporting
regarding
like
how
you
do
that
impact
assessment
related
to
how
it
affects
the
member
consumer
and
if
you
do
I'd
love
to
see
that.
I
A
I
I
Thank
you.
So
we
didn't
talk
much
about
this,
but
in
my
notes,
one
of
the
the
recommendations
from
the
PED
board
was
opting
out
of
the
mental
health
parody
and
addiction
Equity
act.
And
can
you
tell
us
a
little
bit
about
that
decision
and
how
you
guys
came
to
that
conclusion?.
H
Laura
Rich
for
the
record.
Yes,
however,
that
is
if
you
would
like
me
to
address
it
now,
I'm
happy
to.
However,
that's
in
a
in
a
later
agenda
item
and
I
plan
on
addressing
that
in
a
later
agenda
item.
If,
if
that's
okay,.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
if
you're,
if
you've
completed
your
questions,
assemblywoman
I
will
add
one
to
this.
And,
if
you'd
like
to
answer,
how
do
you,
how
does
PEB
sort
of
plan
to
seek
approval
from
the
interim
finance
committee
or
the
legislature
to
expand
some
of
these
excess
reserves?.
H
This
is
because
we
are
in
the
midst
of
building
the
governor's
recommended
budget,
if,
typically
in
an
off
year,
if
the
PEB
board
chooses
to
use
excess
cash
for
any
kind
of
benefit
enhancements,
they
would
go
to
IFC
for
approval
this
year,
because
we
are
in
a
legis
we're
entering
into
a
legislative
session.
It
may
actually
be
built
into
the
governor's
recommended
budget,
in
which
case
we
likely
wouldn't
go
to
IFC.
As
my
understanding,
it
would
just
go
through
our
normal
budget
hearing
process,
because
gov
Rec
is
confidential.
H
A
H
Okay,
so
Laura
Rich
for
the
record
again,
so
the
next
section
is
on
reports
of
our
audited
financial
statements.
I'll
make
this.
You
know
short
and
quick.
Our
independent
auditor
audits,
our
financial
statements
on
both
the
active
and
retiree
funds.
They
do
this
in
accordance
with
generally
accepted
accounting
principles.
So
they're
going
to
be
looking
at
internal
controls,
compliance
accuracy,
things
like
that
are.
H
A
current
auditor
is
Clifton,
Larson
Allen,
and
so
they
conducted
this
audit
and
as
in
with
any
audit,
there
were
a
few
findings.
But
overall
the
opinion
on
both
was
determined
that
pebb's
financial
statements
fairly
represented
the
represented
the
financial
position
of
the
program.
So
you
know,
overall,
it
was
a.
It
was
a
favorable
determination
on
our
audited
statements
but
I'm
willing
to
take
any
questions
related
to
those.
H
All
right,
Laura
Rich
for
the
record
again
this
is
this
section-
is
on
our
plan
utilization.
This
is
the
the
really
the
meat
of
of
Pep.
This
is
what's
happening
in
our
plan.
This
is
what
drives
our
budget.
This
is
what
drives
health
insurance
costs
and
really
what
we
look
at
in
terms
of
not
just
our
our
budgeting
and
finances,
but
in
our
in
our
population
what's
happening,
and
so
I've
divided
this
up.
There's
a
lot
of
information.
H
There's
several
hundred
Pages
here
of
health
insurance
related
information,
I've
really
tried
to
pare
it
down.
I
know:
health
insurance
is
a
complicated
subject
and
there's
a
lot
of
data
here,
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions,
but
I
really
have
pared
it
down
to
the
bare
minimum.
That
I
think
is
just
the
highlights
of
what
is
happening
in
the
plan.
So
I'll
start
with
the
consumer
driven
Health
Plan,
that's
our
high
deductible
plan.
The
enrollment
was
down
significantly
and
I.
H
Think
we've
seen
that
just
you
know
because
of
the
vacancy
rates
in
the
state
we've-
and
this
is
through
June
30th
of
22
2022.
This
is
even
you
know,
lower
today.
If
you
look
at
our
enrollment
So,
the
plan
is
from
July
21
of
June
of
22..
The
enrollment
was
down
significantly
overall
plan
spend
was
down
significantly.
However,
if
you
look
at
how
much
we
were
spending
per
member,
it
was
up,
it
was
16
and
a
half
percent
higher
per
person.
So
yes,
we've
spent
overall
less,
but
that's
because
our
enrollment
was
low.
H
But
if
you
look
at
that,
you
know
per
member
number
we're
spending
a
lot
more
in
health
care
per
person
than
you
know
than
we
were
last
year
so
in
in
prescription
utilization.
Again,
it's
pretty
similar
where
we
had
our
net
claims.
Overall,
the
amount
of
claims
went
down
and
that's
again
largely
due
to
enrollment.
H
H
Again
was
up
quite
a
bit
27
percent,
but
our
per
visit
cost
went
down
a
little
bit,
6.2
percent,
that's
really
just
because
we're
coming
out
of
the
pandemic
right
and
so
you're
seeing
this
is
July
of
21
to
June
of
22,
so
you're
you're,
comparing
it
to
the
previous
year,
where
we
had
a
lot
of
er
visits
due
to
the
due
to
covet
and
the
pandemic.
So
the
severity
and
the
extent
of
er
incidents
were
at
a
lower
cost
right.
H
They
were,
they
were
less,
and
so
that's
why
you're
seeing
even
though
you
have
higher
utilization
you're,
seeing
lower
cost
per
visit
high
cost
claimants.
These
are
what
we
call
claimants
that
are
over
a
hundred
thousand
dollar
threshold
on
on
any
of
our
self-funded
plans.
High
cost
claimants
really
drive
the
the
spend
on
the
plan.
H
High
cost
claimants.
Are
we
look
at
them
pretty
closely
because,
like
just
recently,
we
had
a
one-member
high
cost
claimant
of
five
and
a
half
million
dollars.
That's
a
lot
for
one
person
and
that
that's
why
we
have
catastrophic
reserves
is
to
cover
those
types
of
if
you've
got.
If
you
have
a
few
of
those
happen
per
year,
those
are
not
things
that
you
plan
for,
and
so
those
high
cost
claimants
are
really
something
that
have
to
be
monitored
and
are
what
Drive
the
cost
of
the
plan.
H
Those
high
cost
claimants
on
the
cdhp
we
had
about
43
percent
higher
than
in
the
previous
year,
but
the
good
news
again
due
to
the
pandemic.
You
know
when
you're,
comparing
it
to
the
pandemic,
the
average
cost
of
that
high
cost
claim
was
down
just
a
tiny
bit
to
2.2
percent.
H
On
the
cdhp,
something
of
note
is
that
our
inpatient
claims
or
costs
went
up.
14.7
percent
and
our
outpatient
claims
went
down.
20.5
percent
I've
taken
the
time
to
to
put
together
on
each
of
these
plans
the
top
10
costs
by
diagnosis,
because
I
think
those
are
those
are
important
and
assemblywoman.
Peters
did
talk
about
the
pregnancy
Related
Disorders.
That
is,
we
call
those
the
million
dollar
babies.
They
are.
You
know
when
a
pregnancy
results
in
a
you
know
neonatal
type
situation.
H
H
During
this
time
period,
cancer
always
ranks
up
there.
Mental
health
is
on
all
of
these
lists
as
well
muscular
as,
as
I
said,
musculoskeletal
and
cardiac
they're
they're,
all
you're,
going
to
see
those
on
all
these
lists.
So
then,
moving
on
to
the
low
deductible
plan,
this
is
a
little
bit
different.
H
So
this
was
the
first
year
that
we
had
the
low
deductible
plan
for
those
of
you
on
the
committee
who
have
been
following
PEB
for
a
while
you've
heard
from
members
that-
and
there
was
there-
was
a
desire
to
bring
back
a
low
deductible
plan.
People
were,
they
didn't
feel
like
they
had
the
choice
with
either
a
high
deduct
good
choices
with
a
high
deductible
plan
and
an
EPO
HMO
option.
They
wanted
something
in
the
middle,
and
so
we
brought
back
a
low,
deductible
PPO
plan
and
that's
kind
of
a
middle
option.
H
So
it's
it's
a
little
bit
costlier
in
premiums
than
the
high
deductible
plan,
but
you
have
a
copay
type
scenario
for
most
of
your
most
common
services,
so
primary
care
and
generic
drugs,
and
things
like
that,
and
so
it's
a
kind
of
a
hybrid
between
the
EPO
and
the
cdhp.
It's
the
middle
option.
So
because
this
is
the
first
year
of
the
low
deductible
plan,
we
couldn't
really
compare
it
to
two
prior
year
performance.
H
So,
instead,
what
we
did
here
is
we're,
comparing
it
to
Raw
numbers
on
the
other
plans,
so
the
average
enrollment
again
it's
it's
fairly
low
compared
to
the
cdhp
I,
will
tell
you
that
this
plan
year,
we
had
a
lot
more
people
move
over
to
the
low
deductible
plan.
H
This
was
the
first
year
I,
don't
think
people
really
knew
of
it,
and
or
maybe
they
were
just
hesitant
to
move
on
to
that
plan,
but
we
saw
a
lot
of
migration
this
this
most
recent
July
over
to
the
the
low
deductible
plan,
the
medical
cost
per
member
per
month.
You
see
it
is
a
little
bit
lower
than
the
cdhp
and
definitely
a
lot
lower
than
the
EPO
plan.
H
Er
visits
you
see
are
are
fairly.
You
know
comparable
to
the
cdhp,
but
again
Lower
the
average
paid
here
is
er
paid
is
a
little
bit
higher
than
the
cdhp
we're
looking
at
PM
PM
in
in
a
prescription
drug.
H
The
plan
definitely
picked
up
more
of
the
cost
on
this
plan
for
prescription
drugs,
and
then
the
members
were
paying
less
on
this
plan
and
it's
just
the
way
that
the
co-pays
are
set
up
and,
and
you
know,
versus
the
cdhp
in
network
utilization
very
comparable
as
well.
It
uses
the
same
network
as
our
cdhp
and
EPO
plan,
so
it's
next
year.
We
hope
to
have
more
data
on
it,
but
I
think
that
people
are
overall
fairly
happy
with
the
introduction
of
this
plan.
H
H
And
then
we
move
on
to
the
EPO,
which
again
this
is
similar
to
an
HMO,
it's
a
regional
plan,
so
it
has
no
out
of
network
coverage.
The
EPO
is
offered
in
the
North,
our
enrollment,
similar
again
our
enrollment
went
down.
Our
plans
spent
went
down
significantly
overall,
however,
on
the
EPO,
our
plans
spend
actually
decreased,
just
a
tiny
bit
1.4
percent.
H
H
So
a
lot
of
those
with
more
chronic
conditions
are
on
this
type
of
plant
or
it
draws
more
people
to
the
EPO,
the
prescription,
drug
utilization
overall,
again
you're
going
to
see
that
the
claims
went,
the
net
claims
went
down
almost
11
percent,
our
gross
cost
decreased
about
10
percent,
but
again
that
PM
PM.
If
you
look
at
the
per
member
per
month,
it
went
up
slightly
half
of
a
percentage
point
and
the
average
share
per
claim
that
the
plan
paid
was
at
point.
H
Four
percent
and
the
average
member
share
per
claim
was
up
two
and
a
half
percent,
so
it
was
pretty
stable
for
the
most
part,
but
it's
really
just
the
way
that
the
the
EPO
functions
ER
utilization.
Again
you
see
pretty
similar.
As
to
all
the
other
plans,
you
see,
the
utilization
increase
and
the
per
visit
cost
decrease.
H
The
high
cost
claimants
are
you're
going
to
see
this
again.
10
percent
higher,
not
as
high
as
on
the
on
the
cdhp
but
you're,
seeing
a
jump
in
high
cost
claimants
and
the
average
amount
of
those
high
cost
claims
did
did
decrease
slightly
4.7
percent
on
the
EPO
again
very
similar
covid
was
the
number
one
cost
driver
in
that
plan
year:
pregnancy,
Related,
Disorders,
musculoskeletal
it's
it's
a
very
similar
conditions
that
are
driving
the
costs
here
on
this
plan
as
well,
and
then
on.
The
last
plan
is
our
HMO
again.
H
This
is
not
a
plan
that
is
self-funded
by
PEB.
We
actually
pay
our
our
vendor
Health
Plan
in
Nevada
a
per
member
per
month
fee,
and
they
provide
coverage
to
the
members.
This
is
a
plan
that
is
overseen
and
regulated
by
the
division
of
insurance,
and
so
it
is
not
self-funded.
So
we
get
a
little
bit
slightly
different
data,
we're
not
as
concerned
overall,
because
we're
not
responsible
for
the
claims
on
this
plan.
H
H
But,
overall
again
you
see
that
the
enrollment
it
dropped
just
slightly
1.6
percent,
but
the
medical
PM
pm
on
this
HMO.
It
went
up
35.4
percent,
so
per
member
per
month.
You
know
the
the
this
plan
is
spending
a
lot
more
per
member.
H
The
HMO
is
different.
I
do
want
to
add
that
the
HMO
is
different
because
it's
it
sets
fixed
per
member
fees
with
with
the
providers
and
so
regardless
of
on
the
self-funded
plans,
we're
not
paying
providers
A
per
member
per
month
fee.
We're
not
you
know
it's
it's
paper
service
right
and
so
with
the
HMO.
H
It
is
not
typically
the
the
way
that
this
these
models
work
is
providers
receive
a
fixed
rate
to
provide
a
certain
type
of
service,
and
so
because
of
this,
the
HMO
doesn't
experience
the
same
kind
of
impact
as
the
self-funded
plan.
So,
for
example,
during
the
pandemic,
when
our
self-funded
plans
saw
a
huge
amount
of
you
know,
claims
deference
where
you
know
we.
We
ended
up
with
a
lot
of
access
because
we
weren't
spending
money
on
people
going
to
the
you
know,
going
and
getting
those
elective
surgeries
and
things
like
that
during
the
pandemic.
H
That
same
thing
didn't
happen
on
the
HMO
because
of
those
that
model
of
the
fixed
cost,
and
so
you
don't
see
the
the
the
variants
that
you
would
on
the
self-funded
plan,
but
again
so
on.
If
you
look
at
overall,
if
you
take
into
account
the
medical
and
prescription
drug
pmpm,
the
costs
have
skyrocketed
on
this
plan,
almost
yet
a
28
here.
H
H
H
They
have.
You
know
other
other
incidents
here
where
hypertension
diabetes,
things
like
that
are
making
this
list.
So
this
is
the
top
ten
on
on
the
HMO.
Something
that
was
interesting
here
is
that
they're
impatient
claims
went
up
80.4,
that's
that's
big
and
they're.
Outpatient
claims
went
up
only
nine
and
a
half
percent,
so
it
was
a
little
bit
different
than
the
other
plans.
H
So
with
that
I
know,
that's
a
lot
of
information.
Believe
it
or
not.
This
is
about
two
percent
of
the
information
that
that
was
provided
in
the
report.
So
I
really
did
provide
a
very,
very
high
level
kind
of
story
of
what's
happening
on
the
plans,
but
I'm
happy
to
take
any
questions
or
clarify
any
information
from
the
committee.
A
C
H
Rich
for
the
record,
typically
no
IVF
is
not
I'd
have
to
look
specifically
in
the
in
the
master
plan
documents
for
the
coverage,
but
typically
no
IVs
IVF
is
not
a
generally
a
covered
service.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chirping,
in
terms
of
the
some
of
the
savings
that
have
been
you've
talked
about
in
the
excess
reserves
we've
had.
Do
you
think
some
of
that
comes
from
the
vacancy
rate?
You
know
positions
that
are
not
filled
right
now
and
should
that
be
counted
as
savings,
since,
hopefully,
we'll
we'll
find
folks
who
want
to
fill
up
those
positions
in
the
future.
I.
H
That's
a
very
good
question:
Senator!
Thank
you,
so
Laura
Rich
for
the
record
is,
and
so
our
program's
a
little
bit
different,
so
you'll
hear
pers
present
after
us
and
and
it's
different
than
pers,
because
pers
is
paying
out
the
same
benefit
right
and
so
they've
got
they've
got
a
pool
of
people
that
they're
that
they're
paying
out
a
benefit
to,
but
the
revenue
that's
coming
in
from
those
current
workers
is
much
lower
right
with
Pub.
H
It's
not
the
same
way
because,
even
though
we
are
getting
less
revenue
from
employees
right
because
of
the
vacancy
rates,
we're
paying
out
lesson
claims,
so
our
claims
are
are
dropping,
as
well
as
the
the
revenue
that's
coming
in
from
premiums,
and
so
generally
it
aligns
and
it's
it.
It
rises
and
and
decreases
at
the
same
rate.
Now
that
all
depends
on
what
your
population
looks
like,
because,
if
you,
if
we're
keeping
the
older
for
the
lack
of
better
words,
unhealthier
population,
whether
they're,
you
know
older
or
younger,
it's
it
may.
H
C
H
Laurich
for
the
record-
yes,
so
so
this
is
the
previous
year
financial
statements
they
in
the
past
few
years,
we've
been
behind
the
curveball
a
little
bit,
and
so
because
of
the
timing,
the
most
recent
ones
don't
usually
make
it
to
irbc,
and
so
we
were
one
year
in
arrears.
But
yes,
definitely
we
can
share
those
with
the
committee,
as
the
new
financial
statements
are
released.
Thank.
J
You,
madam
chair
and
and
the
panel
it's
great
to
be
with
all
of
you
and
Miss
rich.
Thank
you
for
the
the
presentation,
I'm
kind
of
just
absorbing
everything
like
like
a
sponge.
Just
a
few
questions,
the
HMO
that
you
talked
about.
You
mentioned
it
that
there's
no
risk
to
the
to
the
state.
I
assume
it's
a
capitated
plan
correct
and
are
you
finding
that
the
trend
is
that
more
people
are
enrolling
in
the
capitated
plan
as
a
way
to
save
money?
J
Co-Pays
I
know
it's
more
exclusive
of
a
network.
You
can't
really
go
out
of
network.
You've
got
to
study
locally.
So
what
are
the
Dynamics
as
far
as
growth
of
the
HMO
plan
and
then,
secondarily,
with
all
the
plans
that
we
have?
Are
we
making
the
investment
in
the
state
for
preventative
care
so
that
we
can,
in
the
future,
begin
to
see
a
healthier
population
to
ensure.
H
Those
are
both
very
good
questions,
so
the
your
first
question,
Laura
Rich
for
the
record,
is
so
the
HMO
enrollment
has
actually
been
dropping
and
there's.
H
It's
it's
a
complicated
formula
but
I'm
going
to
try
to
I'm
going
to
try
to
explain
it
in
a
very
high
level.
10
000
foot
view
manner,
so
we
have
an
EPO
in
the
north
and
an
HMO
in
the
South
they're,
both
very
similar
plans.
Our
EPO
is
self-funded,
whereas
the
HMO
is
a
fully
insured
product.
H
We
blend
the
two
rates,
if
that
makes
sense
right.
So
so
the
HMO
is
actually
because
the
cost
of
care
in
Southern
Nevada
is
lower
than
in
the
rules
than
in
Northern
Nevada.
The
cost
of
that
HMO
is
actually
much
lower
than
what
it
is
being
offered
at
and
the
reason
why
is
because
we
blend
all
of
the
other
plans,
and
so
we
are
a
Statewide
plan.
H
We
don't
offer
premiums
at
a
a
lower
reduced
premium
for
the
Southern
Nevada
population
versus
the
Northern
Nevada
population,
so
those
are
Blended
and
because
of
that,
the
EPO
in
the
North
drops
a
little
bit
in
the
HMO
increases
a
little
bit,
and
so
the
HMO
enrollment
has
it's
been
pretty
I
would
say
consistent
over
the
last
few
years,
because
we
we
were
seeing
a
spiral
and
and
enrollment
was
dropping
when
you
drop
enrollment
in
the
the
smaller
the
wrist
pool,
the
more
expensive
things
get
right,
and
so
we've
made
some
adjustments
so
that
that
doesn't
happen,
but
because
of
the
blending
of
the
plans,
it
definitely
you
know,
does
have
an
effect,
a
lot
of
people
just
like
either
the
high
deductible
plan
or
the
low
deductible
plan,
the
high
deductible
plan.
H
You
are
able
to
contribute
to
your
HSA
and
you
can't
do
that
on
on
other
plans,
and
so
there
are
people
that,
just
like
that
high
deductible
plan.
For
that
reason-
and
then
the
low
deductible
plan
is
very
similar
to
the
HMO
without
the
high
premiums,
and
so
there
was
a
draw
there
as
well.
So
the
HMO.
To
answer
your
question
has
been,
you
know:
I
don't
see,
there
are
people
that
really
like
it
and
that
will
continue
to
remain
on
it.
H
H
To
answer
your
Wellness
question:
yes,
pebb
did
have
in
the
past.
We
have
put
into
place
Wellness
programs
in
in
many
different
shapes
and
forms.
H
So,
prior
to
my
time,
there
was
a
wellness
program
in
place
where,
if
he
participated
in
the
wellness
program,
members
did
receive
a
premium,
a
a
premium
reduction
of
50
or
so
a
lot
of
members
actually
got
free
insurance.
If
you
were
an
employee
only
on
the
on
the
high
deductible
plan
that
was
actually
eliminated
by
the
legislature.
At
one
point,
the
funding
was
cut
off
and
so
again
this
was
before
my
time,
and
so
this
was
I.
Remember
as
an
employee.
H
I
wasn't
very
happy
about
it
myself,
because
I
was
getting
that
50
premium
reduction.
In
addition,
in
I
would
say
five
or
six
years
ago,
we
did
have
a
an
incentive
program
where
we
were
funding
HSA
dollars.
If
members
went
to
the
went
to
seek
preventive
care,
so
if
they
went
and
did
their
their,
they
went
and
had
their
Primary
Care
visit.
H
They
got
their
dental
exam
once
a
year
in
a
cleaning
and
did
their
lab
work
once
a
year
again,
that
was
eliminated
by
the
legislature
as
well,
and
so
pebb
is
a
little
hesitant,
I
guess
to
put
those
plans
into
place
because
of
the
the
I
guess,
a
version
to
them
by
the
legislature
in
the
past
personally.
H
I
think
that
it's
something
that
you
know
we
should
take
a
look
at
moving
forward
again
and
potentially
explore,
because
preventive
care
obviously
is
very
important
and
is
the
the
the
way
that
you
know
the
most
important
way
to
keep
members
healthy
right.
So.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
Any
questions
from
online.
H
All
right,
Laura,
Rich
again
for
the
record,
so
as
part
of
this
section
PEB
has
included
its
communication
plan.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
living
document
and
it's
something
that
we
work
on
constantly
to
improve,
because
Communication
in
our
plan
is
a
real
challenge.
It
is
a
difficult.
We
cover
a
lot
of
different
types
of
employees.
We
cover
actives,
we
cover
retirees,
we
cover
those
in
Nevada.
H
We
cover,
you
know,
people
Nationwide
and
even
globally,
and
so
getting
through
to
members
is,
has
been
always
a
real
Challenge
and
especially
in
a
year
you've
you
heard
of
public
comment.
There
was
a
lot
of
change.
There's
been
a
lot
of
change
at
Pep
over
the
past
few
years
we
were,
we
had
to
go
out
to
RFP
for
almost
everything.
H
In
the
last
three
years,
every
single
contract
has
gone
out
to
bid,
and
this
was
a
result
of
a
of
a
legislative
audit
finding
a
few
years
ago,
and
so
we've
had
a
lot
of
change
in
contracts
in
vendors.
In
you
know,
networks
things
like
that,
and
so
there's
been
a
lot
of
change
and
members
are
they've
received
a
lot
of
communication.
We
communicate
to
members
either
by
email,
U.S
mail.
We
also
leverage
HR
Representatives
at
agencies.
We
work
with
stakeholder
groups
so,
for
example,
the
retired
public
employees
of
Nevada
are
penned.
H
We
work
closely
with
them
to
communicate
to
retirees.
It
has
been
it's
very
challenging
to
get
through
to
people.
Sometimes
you
send
something
in
the
mail
and
it's
ignored
you
send
member
Communications.
It
goes
to
spam
right,
and
so
it's
it's
something
that
we
are
working
on.
But
it's
it's
I
can't
stress
enough
how
much
of
a
challenge
it
has
been
to
to
really
get
our
members
to
read
our
information
and
to
really
understand
our
information,
and
that
being
said,
if
you're
flooding
them
with
information
too,
you
have
to
really
pick
and
choose
how.
H
How
often
do
you
want
to
send
communication
to
members
because
at
some
point
it's
information
overload,
and
so
this
is
something
that
we
work
on
daily
to
improve
and
and
figure
out
ways
to
better
communicate
to
members.
But
we
have
put
out
a
whole
lot
of
communication
and
if
you
look
at
our
communication
plan,
there
was
a
lot
of
information
sent
out
about
covid
and
covet
coverage
plan
benefit
changes
and
vendor
changes.
H
We
had
in
eligibility
and
enrollment
system
overhaul
during
this
plan
year,
where
it
didn't
go
quite
as
planned,
similar
to
the
smart
21
project
that
the
state
went
through
had
a
it
was
the
same,
the
same
vendor
and
we
ended
up
having
to
terminate
that
contract
and
go
back
to
our
old
eligibility
and
enrollment
system.
That
was
a
lot
of
disruption
to
members
and
a
lot
of
member
communication
regarding
different
challenges
that
we
had
during
that
time
frame.
So
members
did
receive
a
lot
from
pebb.
H
During
that
time,
we
also
put
on
open
enrollment
meetings.
Every
year,
they're
virtual,
we
used
to
go
in
person
prior
to
covid
all
over
the
state
and
put
on
open
enrollment
meetings.
Now
we're
doing
them
virtually
they
are
interactive,
and
so
people
can
participate
and
ask
questions
in
real
time.
During
those
open
enrollment
meetings,
we
have
all
kinds
of
you
know:
Medicare
type
informational
sessions
for
those
either
active
or
retirees
that
are
going
on
moving
into
the
into
the
Medicare
Exchange
and
we've
also
put
on
flu
shot
clinics
vaccine
clinics.
H
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
understand,
because
sometimes
when
you
get
things
you
don't
know
if
they're
junk
mail
or
real
mail,
so
any
questions
from
the
committee.
H
H
Typically,
this
is
the
part
where
I
would
pass
it
off
to
our
actuaries
and
have
them
present
this
piece,
because
I
am
by
far
not
an
actuary
and
and
do
not
do
those
valuation.
However,
we
recently
like
I,
said:
we've:
we've
changed
a
lot
of
contracts
and
a
lot
of
vendors
and
we
contracted
with
new
actuaries.
H
We
didn't
think
it
was
appropriate
to
ask
the
new
actuaries
to
present
the
work
of
a
former
contractor,
so
I'm
going
to
do
my
best
to
really
give
a
very
high
level
overview
of
opeb.
If
there
are
questions
on
this,
it's
very
likely.
I
won't
be
able
to
answer
them.
However,
I
can
take
this
back
to
the
actuaries
and
get
answers
for
the
committee,
but
what
is
OPEC
so
that's
other
post-employment
benefits
and
it
considers
the
program's
long-term
liability.
H
So
this
valuation
is
performed
by
PEB
Actuarial
consultants
and
they
what
they
do
is
they
they
value
the
cost
to
cover
employees
who
no
longer
work
for
the
state.
So
those
are,
those
are
retirees
who
are
receiving
retiree
benefits,
many
states
and
Nevada
is
one
of
them
have
been
moving
away
from
offering
retiree
benefits.
This
is
just
a
cost
savings
that
employers-
and
not
just
you,
know,
public
sector
but
private
sectors,
while
they're
just
they're
not
offering
those
those
retiree
benefits.
H
It's
just
a
trend
towards
that
because
of
the
high
cost
of
of
this
type
of
benefit.
So
in
Nevada
employees
hired
after
December
31st
of
2011
do
not
qualify
for
PEB
retiree
benefits.
This
is
something
that
was
determined
by
the
legislature
and,
and
so
this
is
at
some
point,
we
will
not
be
offering
those
retiree
benefits
moving
forward.
H
The
opeb
is
currently
an
unfunded
liability,
no
assets.
We
have
no
assets
to
back
it
up
and
the
way
that
we're
funding
it
is
a
is
a
pay
as
you
go,
so
this
is
built
into
our
budget,
there's
what
we
call
the
the
Reggie
account,
which
is
the
retirees,
and
so
this
is
a
percentage
of
payroll
and
agencies,
pay
a
percentage
of
payroll
to
fund
their
retiree
benefits
and
moving
forward.
So
it's
a
pay
as
you
go.
We
we
don't
have
a
fund
that
is
set
aside
to
cover
these
benefits.
H
This
is
why
you'll
hear
throughout
you've
probably
heard
it
in
this
committee
before
and
moving
forward
during
a
legislative
session.
This
is
why
it's
so
difficult
to
reinstate
those
retiree
benefits
after
a
decade
of
of
eliminating
them,
because
you
have
a
decade
of
unfunded
liability
and
so
to
reinstate.
That
would
be
very
difficult
and
require
a
lot
of
money.
H
Unfortunately,
but
we
are
a
pay
as
you
go,
and
eventually
that
liability
will
decrease
and
become
zero,
because
at
some
point
everyone
who
is
eligible
for
benefits
for
retiree
benefits
will
have
retired
and
passed
on,
and
so
there
won't
only
be
folks
that
are
hired
after
2012
who
do
not
qualify
for
those
benefits,
so
that
liability
is
slowly
decreasing
and
will
eventually
One
Day
become
zero.
J
Senator
Stone
thank
you
beneficiary.
Just
to
talk
about
the
unfunded
liability.
Did
you
say
that
the
existing
employees,
even
those
that
were
employed
after
12
31
of
I,
think
2011?
You
said
existing
employees
are
paying
for
the
opeb
a
contribution,
but
yet
they're
not
going
to
be
the
beneficiaries
to
any
retirement
plan.
H
So
technically
it's
a
percentage
of
it's
it's
charged
to
the
agencies.
So
it's
a
state.
It's
a
state
funded
through
the
percentage
of
a
percentage
of
payroll.
That
is
that
we
receive
from
the
state
subsidy
side.
So
it's
not
necessarily
funded
by
the
the
current
active
employees.
It's
funded
by
the
state
and.
H
H
There
are
a
lot
of
requirements
to
stay
on
top
of
there's
a
lot
of
noticing.
There
is
a
lot
of
just
compliance
in
general,
and
so
there
were
a
few
findings,
and
you
know
I'm
just
gonna,
say:
I
was
actually
fairly
proud
of
the
public
employees
benefits
program,
because,
given
all
of
the
new
legislation
and
all
of
the
covid
related,
you
know
changes
that
I
mean
I
feel
like
they
were
just
changing
monthly
and
keeping
up
with
all
of
the
the
requirements
of
health
plans.
We
did
a
pretty
good
job.
H
The
the
findings
here
were
fairly
minimal,
there's
a
few
a
few
significant
ones,
but
I
think
that
overall,
they
were
fairly
minimal
in
terms
of
what
came
out
of
of
this
audit,
the
big
one
was
the
mental
health
parity
and
addiction
Equity
act.
So
what
this
is
this
this
act
has
been
in
place
for
for
several
years.
H
However,
the
requirement
to
there's
been
some
added
requirements
for
reporting
and
Analysis,
and
things
like
that
that
are
that
have
been
put
into
place
within
the
last
two
years
that
require
health
plans
to
provide
federal,
reporting
and
analysis
on
the
on
Mental
Health
parity,
and
so
what
this
is
is
the
mental
health,
parity
and
addiction.
Equity
Act
is
basically
a
an
act
that
ensures
that
mental
health
benefits
are
being
paid
in
parity
with
the
other
medical
benefits
on
on.
You
know
that
are
covered
through
the
health
plan.
H
Health
plans,
government
health
plans,
self-funded
plans
are
allowed
to
opt
out
of
this,
and
so
pephead's
not
opted
out.
We
did
not
opt
out,
but
we
also
did
not
comply
with
the
federal
reporting
regulations
that
were
put
into
place
within
the
last
two
years
of
this
act.
So
when
this
was
discussed
with
the
board,
we
agreed
that,
because
there's
an
inherent
risk
of
not
opting
out
really
the
default
is
opting
in.
H
H
You
know
fairly
regularly,
and
so
this
is
a
risk,
and
so,
as
we
discussed
with
the
board,
the
board
or
the
the
program
can
opt
out,
but
we
can
still
continue
to
act
as
if
we
were
opting
in
so
opting
out
allows
us
to
remove
that
risk
of
federal,
Audits
and
all
of
the
administrative
reporting
and
things
like
that.
That
is
required,
but
we
can
still
continue
with
the
analysis.
We
can
still
provide
the
the
we
can
do
the
work
to
show
that
we
were.
H
We
are
in
compliance
with
that
act
without
the
risk
of
audits,
and
so
we,
the
board,
did
choose
to
opt
out,
but
we
will
do
the
what's
called
the
non-qualitative
and
the
qualitative
analysis
that
is
required
to
ensure
that
we
are
in
compliance
with
this
act,
so
really
we're
following
the
spirit
of
the
law
without
having
to
put
ourselves
at
risk.
H
If
we
don't
so
the
next
one
was
a
den,
the
dental
accepted
benefit
an
accepted
benefit
under
the
Affordable
Care
Act.
There's
there's
some
essential,
essential
benefits,
there's
10
essential
benefits
that
are
required
under
the
Affordable
Care
Act,
and
one
of
those
essential
benefits
is
Pediatric
Dental.
So
those
children
under
the
age
of
19
are
required
to
have
pediatric
dental
coverage,
and
this
isn't
a
plan
that
is,
that
has
to
adhere
to
Aca
regulations.
H
So,
typically,
if
there's
there
are
situations
where
there's
plans
that
are
considered
an
accepted
benefit,
so
an
exception
to
the
ACA
and
in
order
to
be
an
accepted
benefit,
it
has
to
not
be
bundled
into
your
medical.
It
has
to
be
considered
completely
separate
to
your
to
your
medical
plan
and
something
you
know
either
contractually
or
you
have
to
enroll
in
it
separately,
and
so
that
is
how
you
can
qualify
a
a
health
service
or
a
Health
Plan
such
as
Dental
to
not
have
to
comply
with
ACA
10
essential
health
benefits
Dental.
H
As
you
may
be
aware,
in
the
pub
program
it
it's
bundled
it
comes
with.
If
you
are
enrolled
in
medical,
you
automatically
get
your
dental
coverage,
and
so,
as
we
were
reviewing
this,
it
was
it's
come
up
in
a
prior
compliance.
Audit
in
the
past,
I
did
a
little
bit
of
work
because
I,
it
was
determined
by
our
dag
in
the
past,
our
Deputy
attorney
general
that
it
was
an
accepted
benefit,
and
so
nothing
had
been
done
in
the
past
about
it.
H
But
throughout
discussions
with
our
with
legal
with
our
current
Deputy
Attorney
General,
we
all
decided
and
agreed
that
this
is
that
the
way
that
our
dental
plan
is
today,
it
is
not
an
accepted
benefit,
and
so
we
have
the
option
of
how.
How
do
we
comply
with
this?
We
can
either
make
it
an
accepted
benefit
by
unbundling
it.
This
was
going
to
be
operationally
a
heavy
lift,
because
we
would
have
to
separate
the
premiums
we
would
have
to
allow
people
to
enroll
and
to
disenroll,
and
after
all
of
the
change
the
PEB
is
undergone.
H
I
think
that
would
have
been
very,
very
disruptive
to
members.
People
would
not
have
understood
and
it
would
just
be
challenging
and
a
cost
as
well
to
the
program,
because
we'd
have
to
build
the
logic
into
the
system,
and
so
the
board
opted
against
this.
H
An
easier
option
was
to
just
follow
the
ACA
10,
essential
health
benefits,
and
so
this
was
by
adding
we
just
eliminated
the
annual
maximum
to
so
we
just
changed
it
to
two
thousand
dollars
for
the
annual
maximum
for
the
dental
benefit,
but
we
removed
it
for
children
under
19.,
and
so
there
is
no
annual
maximum
for
children
under
19
on
our
plan,
and
that
puts
us
into
compliance
with
with
the
ACA
there's,
also,
non-discrimination,
testing
that
is
required
to
be
performed.
H
So
this
is
something
that
we
are
working
with
our
vendors
to
to
put
into
place.
H
There
was
a
variety
of
suggested
language
edits
to
our
master
plan
documents,
so
we're
actively
working
with
the
subject
matter:
experts
in
our
clinical
areas-
and
you
know
so-
our
third
party
administrator,
our
Pharmacy
benefit
manager
and
really
just
our
legal
Consultants-
to
make
changes
to
the
master
plan
documents
and
bring
those
back
to
the
board
in
January
for
final
approval,
so
that
they're
ready
to
go
by
may
open
enrollment
and
then
the
other
significant
one
was
the
right
to
continuation
of
care.
So
there's
a
there's.
H
We
currently
have
NRS
today
that
requires
pebb
and
in
insurance
plans
to
offer
continuation
of
care.
If
providers
are,
if
they
become
out
of
network,
you
know,
do
it
a
contra,
a
contract,
or
you
know
some
some
type
of
situation
where
the
member
is
in
the
middle
of
receiving
care
and
that
that
provider
is
no
longer
in
network
and
so
there's,
depending
on
the
situation,
there's
a
time
frame
to
where
a
person
can
continue
care
through
that
provider
at
the
in
network
rate.
H
So
we
already
have
a
process
for
that.
That's
in
place
today,
however,
there's
a
requirement
now
that
requires
the
health
plan
to
proactively
identify
members
that
meet
this
type
of
criteria,
and
while
we
do
have
a
process
in
place
to
allow
members
to
seek
that
continuation
of
care
to
request
it,
it's
not
proactive.
It
requires
a
member
asking
for
it
and
and
going
through
the
process.
H
We
do
not
have
a
process
in
place
to
identify
that
those
those
folks
proactively
so
we're
working
with
our
TPA
to
ensure
compliance
on
that,
so
those
that
those
were
the
the
main
I
think
the
big
ones
and
it
but
like
I,
said
all
of
these
should
be
rectified
here
pretty
shortly.
You
know,
through
through
some
small
changes
in
the
program.
A
Thank
you
very
much
questions
from
the
committee
assemblywoman
Peters.
Please
go
ahead.
I
First
of
all,
I
want
to
say
this
is
one
of
the
areas
that
I
received
the
most
complaints
about
from
public
employees,
that
the
the
adequacy
of
coverage
is
just
not
meeting
the
need,
particularly
for
kiddos
children
are
one
of
our
highest
risk
populations
in
the
state
of
Nevada.
We
know
this
statistically,
and
we
know
this
from
experience
in
the
state
and
I.
You
know
myself
have
mental
and
behavioral
health
issues
that
I
deal
with
regularly
I,
really
like
the
reporting.
I.
I
Think
it's
important
for
us
to
set
a
standard
at
the
state
that
our
parity
metrics
have
a
high
meet
that
high
compliance,
and
if
we
don't
set
it
at
the
state,
then
how
I
don't
know
how
we
justify
setting
it
for
Private
Industry
I'd
like
to
just
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
decision
and
and
really
the
impact
on
on
actually
I.
I
Guess
I'd
like
to
say
I'd
like
to
talk
about
how
we
can
see
how
you're
meeting
those
metrics
without
the
opting
in
right
without
remaining
in
that
mental
health
parity
act
requirements?
How?
How
will
you
ensure
that
we
are
seeing
how
pebb
is
meeting
the
mental
health
parity
requirements
without
being
in
compliance
with
that
law?.
H
Laura
Rich
for
the
record.
Thank
you
for
that
I'm
happy
to
clarify,
so
we
will
be
doing
all
of
the
reporting
and
all
of
the
analysis
that
is
required
under
this
law
and
presenting
it
to
the
board.
This
is
not
something
that
we've
opted
out
of.
We
are
just
opting
out
of
the
requirement
the
federal
requirement,
but
we
are
still
conducting
all
of
the
activities
and
reports
that
is
required
of
that
act
and
those
will
be
reported
to
the
board.
H
I
have
yet
to
determine
or
to
get
the
information
on
on
what
it,
what
it
will
take
to
do
the
analysis
and
how
long
it
will
take,
but
we
are
working
with
we're
actively
working
with
vendors
to
put
that
into
place
and
to
start
that
process,
because
I
too
believe
it
is
very
important.
Mental
health
is
it's
an
area
not
just
National
or
not
just
Statewide,
but
nationally,
where
we
have
provider
shortages,
but
just
in
Nevada
it
is
it's.
It's
a
it's
a
major
problem.
H
Mental
health
is
a
major
problem
and
we
do
not
have
providers.
This
is
not
a
not
necessarily
a
network
problem.
It's
really
just
a
shortage
of
providers
in
general
I
recently
had
when
we
switched
networks
in
July
I
recently
had
two
Hospital
Systems
call
me
directly
and
say:
look
our
Behavioral
Health
units.
We
have
a
hundred
of
your
patients
and
we're
not
a
network.
H
H
I
cannot
these
100
people
do
not
have
an
alternative,
there's
nowhere
that
these
these
people
can
go
to,
especially
this
was
in
Northern,
Nevada
and
so
I
have
the
network
work
with
the
the
provider
to
make
it
happen
now
this
comes
at
a
cost
because,
obviously,
when
they're
Contracting,
when
the
network
is
Contracting,
with
this
provider
group
they're
Contracting
at
much
higher
prices
than
probably
as
the
you
know,
the
reimbursement
rates
and
what
is
I
would
say
the
market
rate,
because
they
can
right,
there's
a
there's,
a
provider
shortage,
and
so
in
order
to
get
these
providers-
and
this
is
not
just
with
mental
health-
but
it's
you
know
in
any
in
any
area
where
you've
got
a
short,
a
shortage
of
providers
and
an
increase
in
demand-
and
this
is
I
just
actually
spoke
to
the
network
yesterday
about
this
in
general-
is
that
those
contracted
rates
are
increasing
just
overall
and
but
I
would
assume.
H
I.
Don't
have
the
numbers
in
front
of
me
and
don't
have
the
data
to
to
justify
this,
but
I?
Would
it's
probably
safe
to
assume
that
the
contracted
rates
with
mental
health
providers
are
increasing
pretty
rapidly
and
again
it
comes
down
to
supply
and
demand.
There's
a
low
Supply
and
high
demand,
and-
and
so
we
are
going
to
see,
mental
health
is
a
high
cost
in
the
plan.
It's
only
going
to
go
up.
We
did
bring
to
the
board
an
option
to
we.
We
are
a
doctor
on
demand.
H
It's
a
virtual
Healthcare
option
where
you
can
seek
not
just
medical
care
but
Behavioral
Health
Services.
We
currently
offer
that
in
pep
today
you
can
seek
a
psychiatric
or
other
kind
of
Mental
Health
Services
through
the
doctor
on
demand
virtual
product,
and
we
had
brought
to
the
board.
One
of
the
decisions
that
they
did
not
approve
was
lowering
the
copay
on
those
as
an
incentive
for
folks
to
access
virtual
mental
health.
H
But
these
are
all
things
that
we're
looking
at,
because
I
do
agree.
Mental
health
is
it's
especially
after
the
pandemic.
H
I
I'm
glad
to
hear
you
say
that
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
is
difficult
to
talk
about
in
the
capacity
of
Health
Care
is
the
economic
impact
of
not
treating
mental
Behavioral,
Health
Care
and
the
effect
it
has
on
on
our
economic
system.
Right
people
won't
go
to
work
or
they
won't
be
productive.
I
know
this
myself,
if
I'm
not
taking
care
of
my
mental
health,
so
that
cost
burden
is
just
I,
think
generally
shifted
out
of
the
economic
cost
burden
and
into
the
healthcare
cost
burdens
where
it
should
be
right.
I
So
we're
treating
people
where
they
need
to
be
treated
I
would
ask,
though
Miss
Rich,
that
you
work
with
us
to
ensure
that
your
compliance
reporting
is
coming
in.
We
asked
the
division
of
insurance
to
provide
that
information
for
the
private
insurance
as
well
and
I'd
love
to
be
able
to
have
those
side
by
side
and
make
sure
that
we're
seeing
the
same
kind
of
metrics
being
assessed
across
the
board,
especially
as
PEB
is
really
standard
that
we
can
set
at
this
date
for
what
our
expectations
are.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
and
just
as
a
follow-up
to
the
assembly
woman's
comments.
I
too
am
concerned
about
this
a
little
bit
and
it's
because
where
is
this
sort
of
written?
In
other
words,
well
you're,
there
I
feel
good
and
I
know
you'll
follow
through,
but
you
know
so
tomorrow
you
leave.
A
Does
the
next
person
have
this
written
somewhere
where
they
actually
follow
this
directive
of
opting
out
and
and
how
do
we
help
those
people
that,
at
your
end,
when
a
vendor
changes
or
a
medication
changes,
we
can't
you
know
it's
not
it's
not
the
same
as
an
antibiotic
where
you
can
take
one
antibiotic
or
you
can
take
another
one.
Mental
health
drugs
are
very
specific
and
very
and
very
important
that
the
continuation
of
those
things
are
done
properly
with
doctors
care.
H
Sure,
solo
Rich
for
the
record,
this
was
actually
a
a
forward
request
that
it
would
come
to
the
board
once
it
was
once
the
analysis
was
complete
that
it
would
come
to
the
board
and
it
is
a
yearly
requirement
federally
to
rate
to
report
this,
so
we
would
be
doing
it
even
though
we
have
opted
out
it's,
it's
really
we're
opting
out
of
the
federal
requirement,
but
the
pet
board
still
has
that
requirement.
So
we
would
add
this
on
to
one
of
the
yearly
type
activities
that
has
to
happen.
A
Thank
you
additional
questions.
A
Okay,
seeing
none
sure
absolutely
go.
I
H
Laura
Rich
for
the
record,
so
the
board
has
requested
that
that
staff
perform
all
of
the
it's
called
the
the
quantitative
and
non-quantitative
testing
that
is,
and
and
I'm
just
going
to
add
that
I
don't
know
the
details
to
it.
Quite
yet
this
is
this
happened.
This
board
meeting
was
on
December
5th,
and
so
it
was
fairly
recent
and
the
biannual
compliance
report
was
really
wrapped
up
days
before
that,
and
so
we're
still
getting
through
the
details
of
what
does
that
take
and
how
long
does
it
take?
H
H
I,
don't
see
it
being
problematic
because
I
just
on
the
surface,
we
pay
mental
health.
Very,
it's
it's!
The
copay
is
a
specialist
visit,
copay
right,
it's
on
the
same,
it's
comparable
to
that,
and
so,
but
there's
it
gets
into
a
lot
more
detail
than
that.
Obviously,
so
it's
going
to
take
several
months
to
do
and
and
perform
that
analysis.
H
The
reporting
is
going
to
we're
going
to
follow
the
reporting,
just
as
if
we
had
to
report
to
the
Feds
that
will
be
then
presented
to
the
board,
I
anticipate,
probably
I
would
say
in
the
summer
or
maybe
even
early
fall
of
2023
just
because
we
have
25
to
30
plus
percent
vacancy
rate,
depending
on
the
day.
So
I
don't
have
a
lot
of
staff
at
the
time
and
we
have
a
lot
of
implementations
that
need
to
happen,
and
on
top
of
that
we
have
legislative
session.
H
That
is
going
to
be
we're
going
to
be
dedicating
a
lot
of
our
time
to,
and
so
we
we
foresee
this
being
presented
to
the
board,
probably
at
either
the
July
board
meeting
or
possibly
the
September
board,
meeting
I,
think
it'll
be
done,
performed
and
and
reported
by
then,
and
then
it'll
just
be
a
regular
agenda
item
on
the
PEB
board
schedule.
Where
this
is
reported
again,
we
have
to
opt
out
yearly,
so
this
is
not
something
that
just
gets
ignored
and
goes
by
the
wayside.
H
We
have
to
actively
opt
out
of
this
yearly,
and
so
this
is
something
that
the
board
will
have
to
actively
approve
and
make
a
decision
on
yearly,
so
it
will
be
reported
on
an
annual
basis
to
the
board,
as
just
a
matter
of
when
do
we
get
that
started,
and
when
is
it?
How
long
does
it
take
from
our
vendors
and
our
and
staffing
issues
as
well,
and
you
know
when
we
have
Staffing
to
be
able
to
take
on
not
just
this,
but
we've
got
some
rfps
as
well.
H
We
have
a
lot
of
legislation
that
we're
following
right
now,
I
think
so
far,
I
have
a
hundred
and
I
think
110
bdrs
that
we
are
tracking
just
in
a
you
know,
we're
an
agency
of
34
people
and
most
of
those
are
not
staffed
right
now,
so
so
we're
we're
trying
to
prioritize
it.
Knowing
that
legislative
session
is
right
around
the
corner,
so
trying
to
be
realistic
and
saying
that
July
is
probably
the
most
realistic
time
frame
to
bring
that
back.
I
I
certainly
appreciate
I
think
all
of
us
appreciate
where
you
are
commitment,
wise
and
ensuring
that
you're
meeting
all
of
your
obligations
and
standards
with
a
lack
of
Staff.
I
You
know
that
that
doesn't
dismiss
Our
obligation
to
our
constituents,
who
are
predominantly
well
who
all
of
our
state
employees
our
constituents
and
one
of
ours
or
another
right
or
most
of
them
at
least
so.
So
we
have
do
have
that
that
burden
to
adhere
to
so
but
I
just
want
to
synthesize
this.
It
is
not
something
that
will
be
mandated
that
will
be
put
into
writing
anywhere.
A
A
Next,
we
will
go
to
agenda
item
five
Public
Employees,
Retirement,
System
judicial
retirement
system
and
legislators,
retirement
system.
Here
with
us
today
we
have
Tina
Leese,
executive
officer
of
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
of
Nevada
and
Miss
Elise.
When
you
join
us,
if
you'll
introduce,
who
you
have
with
you
today
and
we'll
get
ourselves
organized
up
on
this
end
and
when
you're
ready,
please
go
ahead.
K
Good
morning
Madam
chair,
if
you're
ready,
we
are
ready
to
go
I.
Believe
please
go
ahead.
Thank
you.
I
am
Tina.
Liss
I
am
the
executive
officer
of
the
public
employees.
Retirement
system
here
with
me
today
to
my
left
is
Steve
Edmondson
he's
our
chief
investment
officer
and
cabrina
faser
is
our
operations
officer.
They
will
both
be
testifying
on
later
agenda
items.
K
Also
in
Carson
City
we
have
Rick
Combs,
who
will
be
testifying
on
the
agenda
item
5.6,
which
is
the
retirement
benefits
investment
board,
which
has
to
do
with
a
separate
fund
for
local
governments
and
with
that
I
will
start
off
with
item
5.1,
which
is
the
Actuarial
evaluation
for
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
and
just
before
I
begin.
I
will
give
just
a
brief
update
on
the
system
itself.
Since
we
do
have
a
new
member.
K
The
public
employees
retirement
system
covers
all
public
Employers
in
the
state
of
Nevada,
so
that
includes
all
City
County
State
and
school
districts.
Our
largest
employer
is
the
Clark
County
School
District
and
our
second
largest
employer
is
the
state
of
Nevada
the
state
of
Nevada.
When
you
include
the
Nevada
higher
system
of
higher
education
is
a
a
little
under
20
percent
of
the
fund
itself.
K
All
of
our
employers
and
employees
participate
in
our
plan
equally,
that
is,
we
are
a
cost
sharing
plan
so
that
the
benefit
provisions
and
the
contribution
rates
are
the
same
across
all
employers,
so
that
allows
our
employees
to
move
freely
between
public
employers
without
any
difference
in
their
benefit
structure
or
their
contribution
rates.
K
The
first
item
is
the
actuary
evaluation
for
2022.
The
actuary
evaluations
determine
the
projected
liabilities
of
the
plan
and
the
contribution
rates
needed
to
fund
the
plan
on
an
Actuarial,
Reserve
System,
and
during
this
process
the
actuary
considers
the
plan
design,
Our,
member
demographics
and
our
economic
assumptions
to
come
up
with
the
evaluation
of
the
system.
Now,
pursuant
to
the
Nevada
constitution,
the
system
is
governed
by
the
Retirement
Board
and
also
pursuant
to
the
Constitution.
The
Retirement
Board
must
adopt
the
Actuarial
symptoms
that
are
recommended
by
the
actuary.
K
So
therefore
it's
the
actuary
recommends
an
assumption.
The
Retirement
Board
is
legally
required
to
adopt
those
assumptions.
When,
then,
when
the
actuary
prepares
the
valuation
and
then
by
Statute,
the
contribution
rates
are
set
based
on
that
actuary
rate
developed
by
the
actuary.
So
this
is
legally
at
essentially
an
automatic
process
by
which
the
actuary
does
the
valuation,
and
then
the
statute
determines
then
what
those
contribution
rates
will
be
based
on
that
valuation.
K
K
Now
the
ultimate
cost
of
the
benefits
to
be
paid
by
the
system
are
determined
by
the
plan,
design
which
is
set
by
the
legislature
and
future
events,
such
as
the
length
of
service
average
compensation
and
longevity
of
our
members.
The
goal
of
the
Actuarial
funding
is
to
ensure
that
the
current
and
future
benefits
are
paid
through
appropriate
levels
of
employer
and
employee
contributions
and
the
investment
earnings
on
those
contributions
to
project
the
liabilities.
We
make
assumptions
about
future
events,
of
course,
since
there
are
future
events,
we
don't
always
know
what
that
will
be.
K
The
actuary
makes
those
assumption
and
then
in
the
valuation
process
then
looks
at
how
our
experience
compared
to
that
assumption.
So
you
will
then
get
a
gain
or
a
loss
based
on
how
we
did
against
the
Assumption.
Obviously,
your
big
assumptions
are
going
to
be
your
investment
return.
Did
we
make
more
or
less
than
that
long-term
rate
of
investment?
K
Did
our
members
live
longer
than
we
assumed
they
were
going
to
live,
or
did
we
have
more
deaths
than
we
were
expecting?
Did
our
members
have
higher
salaries
than
we
were
expecting
to?
They
have
lower
salaries
than
we
were
expecting
did
we
have
higher
payroll
or
lower
payroll?
We
look
at
all
of
those
factors
to
determine
then
what
we
value
the
system
for
for
that
two-year
period,
for
the
contribution
rates
now
to
make
sure
that
those
assumptions
are
tracking.
With
our
experience,
we
do
an
experience
study
every
four
to
six
years
we
reported
last
year.
K
The
2021
valuation
did
include
the
changed
assumptions.
From
our
last
experience
study
in
2021,
however,
2021
was
not
a
rate
setting
valuation,
so
this
is
the
first
valuation
where
our
new
assumptions,
based
on
the
20
20
21
experience,
study,
have
been
put
into
place
and
then
feed
into
the
contribution
rates.
K
The
demographic
assumptions
that
we
changed
for
the
experience
study
included
the
biggest
one
was
probably
the
mortality
tables.
So
the
longevity
members
we've
moved
to
a
fully
generational
mortality
table
which
takes
into
account
future
expected
growth
and
Longevity
or
changes
in
longevity,
and
so
when
you
assume
people
are
going
to
live
longer,
then
you
also
know
that
you're,
paying
the
benefit
longer
than
you
previously
were
expecting
to
so
any
changes
to
the
mortality
table.
In
that
way,
will
increase
your
costs
and
will
increase
the
unfunded
liability.
K
The
assumed
rate
of
investment
return
was
also
changed
from
7.5
percent
to
7.25
percent.
That
is
a
long-term
assumption.
We
obviously
don't
anticipate
that
we
will
make
seven
into
a
quarter
percent
every
each
and
every
year,
but
over
the
long
term
average
is
what
you
would
expect
for
that
long-term
rate
of
assumption.
The
other
probably
biggest
change
for
the
experience
study
was
the
payroll
growth
assumption.
K
The
regular
fund
had
a
payroll
growth
Assumption
of
5.5
percent,
and
that
was
changed
to
3.5
percent
annual
growth
per
year,
and
then
the
police
fire
fund
had
a
change
from
a
6.5
percent
paper
growth
assumption
to
a
3.5
percent
payroll
growth.
Assumption
where
this
assumption
is
important,
is
in
paying
off
your
unfunded
liability.
Our
contributions
are
a
percentage
of
payroll,
and
so
when
the
actuary
determines
the
amount
of
contributions
that
need
to
be
made,
they
develop
that
in
a
lump
sum
amount
and
then
convert
it
back
to
a
percentage
of
payroll.
K
So
if
you
have
a
lower
payroll,
then
you
thought
you
were
going
to
have
and
your
payments
are
being
made
as
a
percentage
of
payroll.
Then
you
ultimately
are
getting
in
lower
contributions
than
you
were
assuming
so
when
we
lower
the
assumed
payroll
growth
assumption
to
pay
for
the
long-term
for
the
unfunded
liability,
then
that
translates
to
needing
a
higher
percentage
of
the
payroll
that
you
do
have,
because
the
payroll
isn't
growing
as
much
as
you
assumed
that
it
would
and
just
as
a
side
note
on
the
payroll
growth
assumption.
K
This
is
something
that
we
had
been
watching
since
2008.
Prior
to
2008,
the
state
of
Nevada
had
extremely
high
payroll
growth
in
public
employment.
We
essentially
were
always
the
top
in
the
nation
as
far
as
payroll
growth
in
our
public
employment,
which
is
kind
of
interesting,
because
we
historically
have
had
probably
the
lowest
number
of
public
employees
per
capita.
We
always
rank
fairly
low.
K
K
Our
population
was
growing
by
quite
a
bit
that,
through
the
70s,
the
80s,
the
90s
and
the
early
2000s,
we
had
very
high
payroll
growth
and
when
you
have
high
payroll
growth-
and
you
have
percentage
of
that,
your
contributions
are
coming
in
as
a
percentage
of
payroll
and
you
have
a
higher
payroll
growth
than
you
assumed.
Then
you're
getting
more
contributions
in
in
2008
and
9
that
hit
a
very
big
reversal
in
the
state
of
Nevada,
and
so
we
ended
up
years
with
negative
payroll
growth.
And
so
your
contributions
are
coming
in
lower.
K
We
were
hesitant
to
make
any
long-term
changes
to
the
payroll
growth
right
after
the
0809
time
frame,
but
by
the
time
of
2021,
when
the
payroll
growth
had
not
come
back
in
the
state.
The
actuary
determined
that
they
really
needed
to
make
that
change,
because
this
is
looking
more
like
a
long-term
trend
for
US
versus
just
a
shorter
term
issue
that
was
going
to
be
worked
through
and,
as
I
said,
so
the
modifications
to
the
assumptions
can
have
increasing
or
decreasing
effects
on
contribution
rates.
K
In
our
case,
with
these
assumption
changes
in
2021,
they
had
primarily
increasing
effects
to
the
contribution
rates,
and
you
will
see
that
as
we
get
farther
into
this
presentation,
so
that
is
kind
of
the
experience,
study
and
kind
of
set
you
up
for
what
you
will
see
for
the
contribution
rates,
but
before
we
get
to
that,
I
just
want
to
comment
just
briefly
on
charts,
328
and
329
in
your
packet,
you
will
see
the
changes
to
our
active
membership.
This
is
also
some
interesting
numbers
for
us.
K
However,
that
was
not
equal
between
our
two
funds:
the
regular
the
police
fire
fund,
the
police
fire
fund
had
a
decrease
of
284
active
members,
so
the
police
fire
fund
is
just
under
13
000
members
now
and
they
had
a
decrease
of
284
to
get
to
that
point.
So
it's
a
much
smaller
phone
than
the
regular
fund,
but
they
did
have
that
decrease
in
membership
where
the
active,
the
membership
and
the
regular
fund
increase.
This
will
be
something
we'll
need
to
continually
look
at
again
for
the
payroll
growth
in
the
future.
K
K
K
So
when
the
actuary
did
the
2021
experience
study,
they
recommended
that
the
board
smooth
the
impact
of
those
changes,
because
those
changes
were
significant,
and
so
these
rates
reflect
half
of
the
impact
of
the
smoothing,
and
you
will
see
that
the
current
statutory
rate
in
the
regular
fund
is
29.75
percent
of
payroll.
The
Actuarial
rate
came
in
at
33.61
with
the
statutory
rounding
mechanism
that
gives
a
increase
to
the
rate
of
33.5
percent.
K
This
is
the
employer
pay
rate.
Now
that
is
a
somewhat
of
a
misleading
name,
is
called
employer
pay
because
we
do
collect
the
entire
contribution
from
the
employer
and
about
80
percent
of
our
membership
does
participate
in
the
employer
pay
plan.
Most
local
governments
only
offer
the
employer
pay
plan
and
and
legally
can
only
offer
the
employer
pay
plan,
but
this
is
equally
shared
between
the
member
and
the
employer.
K
So
what
will
happen
is
that
when
there's
a
rate
increase
in
this
case,
it's
3.75
percent,
the
employer
must
certify
to
us
how
the
employee
is
sharing
in
their
half
of
this
rate.
K
So
what
the
employer
can
tell
us
is
that
they
are
going
to
reduce
the
employee's
salary
for
half
of
that
contribution
rate
increase,
which
is
historically,
what
the
state
has
done
with
its
employees
or
the
employer
can
tell
us
that
they
were
going
to
give
their
employees
an
equivalent
to
pay
increase,
and
instead
of
that
pay
increase,
they
it
is
now
going
to
pay
for
the
employees
portion
of
the
contribution
rate
increase.
This
is
historically
how
local
governments
will
implement
the
contribution
rate
increase.
Each
employer
can
make
that
decision
going
forward
with
each
rate
increase.
K
K
K
Which
then
gave
a
statutory
rate
of
50
percent?
This
is
an
increase
of
six
percent
six
percentage
points
to
this
fund.
K
The
causes
to
the
contribution
rate
increases
for
the
police
fire
fund
are
similar
to
the
employer
to
the
regular
side,
but
they're
magnified,
and
that's
because
these
smaller
size
of
this
fund,
so
it
makes
it
more
volatile
when
you
have
fewer
members
to
spread
the
to
spread
changes
over
certain
changes
to
certain
assumptions
also
have
a
greater
impact
on
the
police
fire
side.
K
The
main
distinguishing
factor
between
the
regular
benefit
provisions
and
the
police
fire
benefit
Provisions
are
that
the
police
fire
fund
has
earlier
retirement
a
police
fire
member
can
retire
at
age
50
with
20
years
of
service.
A
regular
member
can
retire
at
age
60
with
10
years
of
service.
K
So
you
typically
have
maybe
a
a
10-year
difference
of
when
the
police
fire
members
can
retire
and
when
the
regular
members
can
retire
and
if
you're
drawing
the
benefit
for
10
years
longer,
then
that
will
obviously
greatly
increase
the
cost
of
that
benefit
also
with
the
mortality
tables.
The
mortality
tables
are
very
similar
between
the
two
funds.
So,
drawing
10
years
earlier
generally
will
mean
that
they
will
also
be
drawing
10
years
longer,
and
that
is
what
makes
that
benefit
significantly
more
expensive
on
the
contribution
rate.
K
The
next
page
333
gives
you
the
employee
employer
pay
fund.
This
fund
is
where
the
employer
pays.
Half
of
the
rate
directly
to
us,
the
employees
pay
half
of
the
rate.
The
employee
share
is
done
as
an
after-tax
deduction
so
that
their
contributions
are
then
refundable
and
because
of
those
refundable,
employee
contributions,
it
makes
this
country
this
rate
about
one
to
one
and
a
half
percent
higher.
Historically
only
about
20
percent
of
our
members
participate
under
this
program.
K
It
is
a
choice
of
the
member
to
do
either
the
employee
employer
pay
or
the
employer
pay
if
they
are
with
an
agency
that
can
allow
that
most
of
your
employees
on
this
fund
are
state
employees,
because
that
is
the
largest
employer
that
is
able
legally
able
to
offer
this
plan
an
employee
on
the
employer,
employer
pay,
employee,
employer
paypan
can
switch
to
the
employer
pay
plan.
Once
an
employee
makes
a
voluntary
switch,
they
must
stay
in
employer
pay.
K
K
So
we
do
an
Actuarial
evaluation
every
year,
but
the
rates
only
change
every
two
years,
and
so
we
went
back
to
the
previous
rate
setting
year
of
2020,
to
give
you
the
the
rate
on
top-
and
these
are
the
average
rates
between
the
two
contribution
rate
plans,
so
they
won't
completely
match
with
either
the
employer
pay
plan
or
the
other
plan,
because
they,
the
at
the
actuary
average,
the
two
as
a
weighted
average
and
then
took
it
to
the
bottom
of
2022
to
show
the
the
rate
changes
and
anything
in
parentheses
on
this
page
is
a
reduction
to
the
rate
and
anything
not
in
parentheses,
was
an
increase
to
the
rate.
K
Our
five-year
smoothing
of
assets
actually
gave
us
an
investment
gain
for
the
year,
so
the
investment
gain
over
the
two-year
period
actually
worked
to
reduce
the
contribution
rate
in
the
regular
fund
by
2.36
percent.
If
you
go
down,
you
will
see
that
the
biggest
impacts
to
the
increase
are
number
one.
The
effect
of
the
payroll
growth
being
lower
than
assumed,
meaning
we're
not
getting
contribution
rates
in
at
the
level
that
we
would
assume,
and
you
will
also
see
that
a
little
further
down
point
0.88
and
1.04.
K
K
We
have
a
long-term
assumption
for
afflation
of
2.5
percent
and,
as
you're
probably
aware
that
inflation's
been
a
little
bit
higher
than
2.5
percent
in
the
last
year
or
so,
and
so
our
post
retirement
increases
are
capped
by
the
rate
of
inflation
and
since
inflation
has
generally
been
higher
than
than
our
statutory
percentages,
that
means
we're
paying
higher
post
retirement
increases
to
our
retirees,
which
then
has
led
us
to
a
significant
loss
in
the
last
two
years,
leading
to
a
significant
portion
of
the
contribution
rate
increase.
K
Now
I
will
like
to
say
that
that
is
part
of
the
benefit
design
the
legislature
has
determined
is
necessary
because
it
is
now
working
as
designed
to
allow
our
retirees
to
keep
Pace
with
inflation,
and
these
are
post-retirement
benefit.
Increases
are
paid
for
through
the
contribution
rate.
That's
why
you're
seeing
it
feed
to
the
contribution
rate
prior
to
the
high
inflationary
environment.
We
had
gains
in
this
area
so
now
we're
kind
of
trading
off
and
kind
of
equalizing
that
but
right
now
those
are
a
large
impact,
a
large
driver
on
the
rates.
K
If
you
get
further
down
on
the
regular
side,
the
effect
of
the
changes
in
the
assumptions
were
7.92
percent.
That's
primarily
going
to
be
from
the
payroll
growth
assumption,
change
the
change
in
mortality
table
and
also
a
change
into
retirement
rates.
We
are
we
historically,
the
last
10
years
or
so
have
been
running
losses
in
rates
of
retirements,
which
means
that
people
were
retiring
earlier
and
more
expensively
than
we
were
assuming,
and
so
we
made
changes
to
the
Assumption,
which
then
changed
the
rate
going
forward.
K
K
But
because
of
the
changes
to
the
assumptions
and
that
the
effect
that
that
had
on
the
rate,
it
was
determined
that
it
was
sound
funding
policy
to
then
put
the
rest
of
the
unfunded
liability
on
a
20-year
payment
schedule
which
had
an
impact
of
decreasing
the
ultimate
rate
by
1.5
percent
on
the
regular
side.
What
they
did
on
the
police
fire
side
is
put
the
entire
unfunded
on
a
20-year
payment,
which
is
recommended
by
the
actuary
because
of
the
shorter,
the
smaller
size
of
that
fund
when
they
were
getting
two.
K
When
you
had
the
on
the
amortization
period,
getting
too
short,
it
was
getting
too
volatile
and
so
putting
them
back
on
their
20.
They
are
a
closed
layer
approach
so
that
that
will
decrease
a
year
each
year.
It
will
decrease
by
a
year
that
saved
about
six
percent
on
the
contribution
rate
for
the
police
fire
side.
So
those
were
the
two
changes
that
the
board
made
was
to
the
funding
policy,
and
that
is
so.
K
This
chart,
then,
shows
all
the
the
causes
and
of
the
rate
changes
and
then
also
the
it
does
show
the
effect
of
the
methods
the
board
put
into
place
to
try
to
take
away
some
of
the
volatility
of
the
contribution
rates.
So,
with
this
change
to
the
amortization
period,
the
effective
amortization
period
for
the
regular
fund
is
16.5
years
and
for
the
police
fire
fund,
it's
20
years
for
an
aggregate
of
17.3.
K
The
actuary
value
assets
is
used
for
funding
purposes
because
it
Smooths
the
five
years
of
investment
gains
and
losses.
In
order
to
reduce
the
volatility,
the
Actuarial
funded
ratio
for
the
regular
fund
decreased
slightly
from
75.3
to
74.8
and
the
police
fire
funded
ratio
decreased
from
75.6
to
74.6.
This
has
mainly
to
do
with
the
Assumption
changes
again
when
you
make
changes
primarily
to
the
payroll
growth
and
not
the
payroll,
both
the
mortality
tables
that
will
have
an
effect
on
your
unfunded
liability
number.
K
The
combined
actuary
funded
ratio
is
74.7,
which
is
down
from
75.4
now
page
336
shows
information
regarding
the
actuary
value
of
assets
versus
the
actuary
liabilities.
This
is
just
to
give
you
a
representation
of
the
growth
of
the
assets
versus
the
growth
of
the
unfunded
liability
over
a
10-year
period
and
right
now
our
Actuarial
value
of
assets
and
our
market
value
of
assets
are
pretty
close
on.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
I
believe
chair,
Monroe
Moreno
has
a
question.
D
Thank
you.
Thank
you
for
the
presentation.
You've
covered
a
lot
of
the
primary
factors
that
will
require
the
increase
of
the
contribution
and
I
may
have
missed
it.
If
I
did
I
apologize,
were
there
other
options
that
were
discussed
with
the
purse
board
to
offset
the
increases
to
those
contribution
rates,
and,
if
so,
could
you
share
what
those
other
options
were
with
us.
K
Under
the
the
way,
our
legal
Provisions
work
and
the
funding
policy,
there
really
weren't
a
lot
of
other
options
for
the
board
because
of
the
Constitution,
which
requires
the
board
to
adopt
the
actuary
assumptions
recommended
by
the
actuary.
Those
are
the
assumptions
that
that
have
to
be
used
and-
and
the
reason
for
that
is,
is
to
make
sure
that
you
are
realistically
funding
your
plan
and
then
the
other
part
of
that
is
because
the
statute
requires
that
the
contribution
rates
be
set
based
on
the
Actuarial
valuation
results.
K
There's
really
not
a
lot.
The
board
really
the
discretion.
The
board
has
in
the
setting
of
The
contribution
rates,
where
the
board
has
some
discretion,
and
this
always
comes
on.
The
advice
of
the
actuary
is
in
the
funding
policy
itself,
and
so
with
that,
the
the
the
two
areas
where
they
went
is
with
the
phase-in
of
the
changes
based
on
the
action
based
on
the
changes
to
the
Actuarial
assumptions,
and
then
the
other
thing
was
lengthening
the
time
period
by
which
we're
paying
the
the
unfunded
liability.
K
Those
were
really
the
only
two
options
that
the
board
discussed.
There
are
obviously
options
that
the
legislature
has,
because
the
legislature
historically
by
Statute,
has
controlled
how
the
contribution
rate
mechanism
is
established,
and
that
includes
the
split
between
the
employer
and
the
employee.
We
are
somewhat
unique
in
Nevada
in
the
fact
that
the
employer
and
employees
split
the
rate
in
half,
including
the
payment
on
the
unfunded
liability,
and
so
those
would
be
areas
that
would
be
left
to
the
legislature.
D
You
said
we're
unusual,
we're
going
to
split
it
in
here.
What
what's
the
custom
with
other
states?
Is
there
a
different
mechanism
using?
Could
you
share
with
that
with
us?
What
that
is?
What's.
K
In
a
list
for
the
record,
there
are
two
primarily
two
ways
you
can
that
other
states
may
do.
Some
are
fully
non-contributory,
which
would
mean
the
employer
pays.
The
entire
rate.
That
is
not
all
that
common,
the
most
common
method,
I,
would
say,
is
probably
where
the
employee
portion
of
the
rate
is
is
set
in
statute
as
a
certain
percentage.
C
C
C
K
You
in
a
list
for
the
record,
that's
going
to
be
a
combination
of
both,
so
that's
based
on
total
payroll.
So
it's
going
to
be
affected
by
the
salaries
that
are
being
paid
and
by
how
many
active
members
you
have,
and
so
our
total
payroll
was
growing
and
sometimes
was
negative
or
growing
less
than
we
assumed,
and
since
we
pay
as
a
percentage
of
payroll,
that
means
we're
getting
lower
dollars
in
on
contributions
than
we
thought
and
our
unfunded
payments
are
based
on
that.
So
we're
not
getting
it
in.
K
So
it
has
two
factors,
but
the
main
one
is
the
fact
that
our
active
membership,
either
some
years,
has
decreased
or
has
not
increased
by
much.
So
it
has
probably
more
to
do
with
the
number
of
active
members
which
has
to
do
with
vacancies
in
in
Prior
years
it
had
to
do
with.
Potentially
you
know,
layoffs
or
other
things
that
governments
had
to
do
if
they
had
budgetary
issues.
But
yes,
vacancies
would
have
a
big
effect
on
that.
C
Thank
you
very
much.
Ms,
listen.
Chairman
tells
me
one
further
question.
Thank
you.
The
the
contribution
smoothing
mechanism
that
The
Purge
board
has
put
in.
Do
you
think
that
these
projected
increases
would
be
worse
if
that
weren't
in
there
or
how
do
you
think
that's
affecting
that
smoothing
mechanism
what
the
employees
are
going
to
be
needing
to
contribute.
K
So
what
the
port
put
in
place,
the
smoothing
of
the
phase-in
of
the
Actuarial
assumption
changes,
definitely
decreased.
The
current
contribution
rate
increases.
The
point
was
to
not
put
it
in
all
at
once.
Those
will
need
to
come
in
at
some
point
currently
the
phase-in
period.
It
was
a
four
year
phase-in
period,
so
the
way
it
stands
now
is
the
rest
of
that
will
phase
in
over
the
next
two
years.
K
So
those
those
will
come
in
the
what
the
board
did
with
the
the
change
to
the
amortization
period
that
will
I
guess
permanently
lower
what
the
rate
would
have
been
if
that
makes
sense,
because
you're
spreading
the
time
out
over
a
long
period
of
time.
So
the
numbers
that
you
see
on
this
page
the
effective
changes
in
the
funding
policy.
We
don't
expect
that
to
come
back
in
the
next.
K
You
know
four
to
six
to
eight
years
as
far
as
contribution
rates,
but
you
would
affect
the
line
above
it
effect
of
the
four-year
phase-in
that
will
be
phased
in,
probably
by
the
next
evaluation,
not
the
next
rate,
setting
valuation
I'm,
not
sure.
If
I
fully
answered
your
question.
A
Thank
you
very
much
additional
questions
from
anybody
at
the
committee.
Assemblywoman
Peters.
Are
you
raising
your
hand
or
okay?
Thank
you.
All
right,
I
just
have
one
question:
it's
just
clarification.
We've
had
the
conversation,
but
I
I
just
need
I
guess
hear
it
again.
The
12
participating
entities
in
that
rbif
they're,
not
all
like
all
the
people
that
we
assume
should
be.
A
There
are
not
all
there
on
that
list,
and
so
I
was
wondering
if
you
could
clarify
why,
like
see,
we
don't
see
North
Las
Vegas
or
we
don't
see,
Clark
County,
School,
District
or
some
of
those
other
entities
that
may
very
well
be
participating.
K
K
So
there
were
no
contributions
made
no
Investments
and
in
2001
the
judicial
retirement
system
was
created
and
it
was
funded
with
and
I
think
an
initial
payment
of
five
million
dollars
in
July
of
2001,
and
what
happened
was
the
all
the
judges
that
the
state
was
paying
on
a
pay-as-you-go
basis
were
folded
into
the
judicial
retirement
system,
so
that
system
started
with
paying
out
benefits
to
people
who
had
never
we'd
never
had
contributions.
For.
K
So
that's
just
a
little
bit
of
an
explanation
of
why
this
system
was
created
initially
with
an
unfunded
liability
and
it
was
created
just
for
the
state.
So
at
that
point
it
was
just
your
Supreme
Court
Justices
and
district
court
judges
at
that
time,
and
then
the
legislature
I
believe
in
a
round
of
seven
allowed
for
local
jurisdictions
to
opt
to
elect,
to
cover
their
justices
of
the
peace
and
Municipal
Court
judges,
and
because
of
the
way
that
the
judicial
retirement
system
was
created.
That
was
done
in
a
way
to
have
it.
K
K
They
have
a
mechanism
where
their
rates
will
change
every
two
years
based
on
the
Actuarial
evaluation
and
we
do
look
at
it
in
an
Aggregate
and
we
do
look
at
it
individually,
employer
by
employer
the
actuary
contribution
rate-
and
this
is
a
little
bit
different
than
purged
for
state
judges-
is
currently
22.0
percent.
That
is
only
what
we
call
normal
costs
and
administrative
costs.
That
does
not
include
a
payment
on
the
unfunded
liability
so
for
pers.
K
The
payment
on
the
unfunded
liability
is
included
in
the
total
contribution
rate
that
we
just
talked
about
the
33.75
percent,
but
for
the
state
judges
we
get
a
lump
sum
payment
each
year
to
pay
the
unfunded
liability
payment,
so
the
22
percent
is
covering
what
is
going
forward
and
then
we
get
a
lump
sum
for
the
unfunded
liability
payment.
The
state
judges
rate
came
in
at
23.33
percent.
K
They
had
the
same
assumption
changes
as
the
pers
fund
or
very
similar
assumption
changes,
they're
demographically,
a
very
different
group,
as
you
might
imagine,
and
then
your
general
employees
and
pers
just
because
they
tend
to
come
to
the
judicial
retirement
system.
That
tend
to
come
to
the
bench
a
little
bit
older
than
your
general
employees,
and
so
they
they
have
a
little
bit
different
demographics.
So
their
rate
rounded,
will
move
from
22
percent
to
23.25
percent.
K
Now
the
amortization
payment
is
paid
directly
to
us
from
AOC,
and
it
is
once
a
year
in
July
that
payment
is
going
to
be
one
million
five
hundred
fifty
one
thousand
seven
hundred
and
ninety
six
each
year
in
the
biennium.
That
is
up
from
one
million
three
hundred
twenty
two
thousand
one
hundred
and
thirty
seven
in
the
current
biennium,
the
ratio
of
actuary
value
of
assets
to
liability
in
this
fund
actually
increased
from
92
to
92.2
percent
and
the
unfunded
actuary
liability
increase
from
14.2
million
to
14.7.
K
K
K
The
next
item-
5.3
and
I'm,
starting
on
page
345,
is
the
update
for
the
legislators
retirement
system.
As
you
may
recall,
the
provisions
of
the
legislative
retirement
system
allow
legislators
to
either
opt
out
or
terminate
participation,
so
one
would
be.
They
never
became
a
member,
and
one
was
they
were
a
member
and
elected
to
terminate
in
2022.
The
active
membership
in
this
fund
decreased
from
27
to
25
members.
The
number
of
retirees
decreased
from
55
to
53,
while
the
number
of
overall
beneficiaries,
which
includes
survivors,
decreased
from
70
to
69.
K
like
Persian
Jrs,
the
even
numbered
fiscal
year.
Evaluation
for
lrs
determines
the
amount
of
the
sum
contribution
made
by
the
employer,
in
this
case
the
legislature.
For
each
year,
the
biennium
and
by
Statute,
the
participating
legislators
contribute
15
percent
of
legislative
pay
as
the
employee
contribution,
so
a
little
bit
different
than
pers
and
judicial
retirement
system,
and
then
the
employer
which
the
state
as
this
is
a
one
employer
plan,
pays
whatever
then
is
determined
by
the
actuary,
above
that
15
percent
needed
to
fund
the
plan.
K
So
in
this
valuation,
the
employer
payment
is
increasing
from
82
846
in
the
prior
biennium
to
90
579
in
the
current
biennium,
so
that
will
be
each
year
of
the
upcoming
biennium.
K
The
assumptions
changes
were
also
made
to
the
legislative
retirement
system,
and
so
that
is
the
main
reason
for
that
payment
to
be
increasing.
The
funded
ratio
of
the
legislators
retirement
system
decreased
from
98.8
percent
to
97.6
percent,
so
nearly
a
hundred
percent
funded
the
Actuarial
actual
the
unfunded
actuary
liability
is
somewhat
volatile
in
in
this
fund,
just
because
of
the
small
size
and
the
very
short
amortization
period
that
this
fund
has
it
increased
over
the
last
year
from
61
732
to
124
363,
but
by
comparison
two
years
ago
was
a
hundred
and
ninety
nine
thousand.
K
So
over
the
two
year
period
the
unfunded
liability
decreased
from
199
433
to
124
363..
K
The
demographic
information
for
this
plan
is
on
page
346
of
your
packet.
The
amortization
period
for
this
fund
is
only
1.7
years.
So
that's
the
length
of
time
that
is
estimated
for
this
fund
to
be
a
hundred
percent
funded,
which
I
think
is,
is
important
for
this
fund
because
of
the
active
membership
dropping
because
of
the
opt-out
or
the
termination
features
of
this
plan,
and
I
will
also
note
that
the
maximum
benefit
in
this
plan
cannot
be,
can
no
longer
be
achieved
by
any
individual
member
because
of
term
limits.
K
It
would
take
30
years
of
legislative
service
to
to
achieve
the
maximum
benefit
and
I
do
not
believe
that
is
possible
any
longer.
L
Yes,
Madam
chair
members
of
the
committee.
My
name
is
Steve
Edmondson
Chief
investment
officer
of
Nevada
pers.
My
portion
of
today's
report
is
going
to
cover
the
status
of
the
investment
program
for
the
pers
legislators
and
judicial
funds,
beginning
on
page
I,
believe
351
of
the
provided
materials
there's
a
page
titled
investment
results.
L
This
page
summarizes
performance
for
all
three
friends
through
the
2022
fiscal
year,
the
column,
the
column
furthest
on
the
left
depicts
returns
for
the
most
recent
fiscal
year,
Nevada's
experienced
the
return
of
negative
5.2
percent,
obviously
a
difficult
year
for
Investments
and,
however,
it's
one
of
those
things
that
is
not
necessarily
totally
unexpected.
L
This
represents
the
fifth
negative
fiscal
year
in
prayer's
history
and
throughout
that
history,
the
38
years
since
Inception
in
Nevada
purse
investor
return
has
achieved
its
its
long-term
objective,
but
over
any
individual
year.
We
certainly
expect
a
lot
of
volatility
around
those
returns
and,
in
fact,
looking
at
the
3
5,
10
and
30-year
numbers
for
for
Nevada
pairs.
Each
one
of
those
numbers
returns
is
above
for
his
longer
term
return,
assumption
and
and
I'll
note,
the
middle
ear,
the
or
the
middle
column.
L
The
five
year,
the
five
year
number
is
often
an
important
one
for
the
valuation
which
team
was
referencing
earlier
today
and
that
the
actuary
utilizes
a
five-year
smoothing
period
for
investment
returns.
So
when
that
number
is
above,
our
our
long-term
return
assumption
that
will
generally
imply
that
we're
rolling
some
investment
gains
into
the
valuations.
L
The
legislators
and
judicial
portfolios
return
negative
9.5
for
the
fiscal
year.
The
legislature's
portfolio
ended
the
the
period
with
4.8
million
dollars
in
assets,
and
the
judicial
fund
ended
the
period
with
163.7
million
in
assets.
You'll
note
the
return
differences
between
the
large
pers
fund
and
the
smaller
legislators
and
judicial
portfolios.
L
That
difference
is
largely
due
to
the
fact
that
the
smaller
portfolios
don't
have
private
Market
exposures
in
them,
so
the
larger
Nevada
first
fund
has
allocations
to
both
private
equity
and
private
real
estate.
Those
returns
tend
to
lag
public
markets
to
some
degree
and
in
a
single
Years
you'll,
see
some
return
differences,
but
over
longer
time,
Horizons.
The
risk
profiles
of
the
smaller
portfolios
are
designed
to
be
roughly
in
line
with
Nevada
purse.
L
It
wouldn't
be
surprising
to
see
that
phenomenon
flip
a
little
bit
this
next
year
and
have
and
have
the
smaller
legislators
and
judicial
funds,
perhaps
outpace
the
large
groupers
portfolio
in
the
coming
fiscal
year,
the
following
page
page
352,
titled,
pers
annual
performance
details
for
his
investment
returns
for
each
of
the
last
38
fiscal
years.
L
The
horizontal
line
across
the
middle
of
the
page
depicts
Nevada's
long-term
investment
return,
assumption,
which
Tina
noted
was
reduced
by
the
board
at
the
recommendation
of
the
actuary.
That's
one
of
the
actual
assumptions
that
the
board
adopts
and
it
was
reduced
from
7.5
down
to
7.25.
L
Looking
back
over
the
past
38
years.
One
of
the
things
that's
really
important
to
note
is
that
we
certainly
don't
expect
any
single
year
to
to
to
be
right
at
7.25
in
single
years.
We
expect
a
wide
dispersion
of
returns
around
that
the
last
couple
years
are
are
a
pretty
good
example
of
that
the
2021
fiscal
year
return
for
pers
was
was
north
of
27
percent
last
year.
L
Negative
five
percent,
this
the
this
dispersion
in
single
year
returns,
is
something
that
we
that
we
expect
to
see
over
time
and
there's
going
to
certainly
be
years
that
were
below
that
7.25
long-term
assumption
over
the
last
38
years.
12
of
those
years
were
below
that
number.
We
would
expect
this
type
of
a
performance
both
above
and
below
that
line
to
continue
to
continue
out
into
the
future.
L
Per's
investment
strategy
is
depicted
on
page
355,
I
believe
the
provided
materials
and
pers
investment
strategy
is
somewhat
unique
in
the
industry,
in
that
we
employ
a
much
simpler
portfolio,
design
with
a
larger
allocation
of
high
quality,
publicly
traded
stocks
and
bonds,
and
we,
at
least
to
my
knowledge,
are
the
only
large
public
pension
fund
that
is
100
indexed
across
all
public
markets.
So
all
publicly
traded,
U.S
stocks,
International
stocks
and
U.S
bonds
are
all
indexed
which
keeps
our
costs
low.
L
At
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
that
there's
a
number
of
advantages
of
ours,
of
our
simple
structure
at
Nevada
pers,
again
not
the
least
of
which
are
minimized
in
investment
costs.
We
certainly
don't
know
what
the
future
holds
for
markets
every
year,
but
we
do
know
that
we
can
control
costs,
and
so
we
we've
put
a
heavy
emphasis
on
that
over
the
years.
L
Nevada's
investment
costs
are
among
the
lowest,
if
not
the
lowest
in
in,
amongst
our
peer
group
of
large
public
Pension
funds,
which
we
estimate
saves
the
system
north
of
200
million
dollars
per
year
and
and
and
and
savings
due
to
the
lower
fee
structure,
in
addition
to
being
low
cost,
though,
the
simple
portfolio
design
that
that
we've
put
together
here
at
Nevada
purse
has
also
proven
to
be
competitive
over
time
over
the
last
three
five,
seven
and
ten
year
time
periods,
Nevada
prayers,
investment
returns,
rank
within
the
top
10th
percentile
or
better
amongst
our
large
public
Cloud
peer
group
and
over
the
last
38
years
or
since,
since
the
fund's
Inception
Nevada
purse
returns,
ranks
within
the
top
15th
percentile
of
large
public
Pension
funds.
L
So
it's
been
low
cost,
but
it's
also
been
competitive
relative
to
more
complicated
portfolio
designs
that
you
see
out
there
in
the
public
fund
space
we
I,
guess
similar
to
to
single
year
returns.
We
don't
expect
our
our
rankings
will
be
at
the
top
of
the
peer
group
every
year
and
when,
in
fact,
we
spend
about
a
third
of
any
individual
years
towards
the
bottom
end
of
the
database,
but
over
time
we
do
believe
that
per
simple
low-cost
approach
will
continue
to
be
competitive
relative
to
more
complicated
portfolios
over
time.
L
So,
while
my
report
today
and
the
provided
material
are
all
through
the
most
recent
fiscal
year
and
I
wanted
to
take
the
opportunity
to
provide
a
quick
update
on
where
we
stand
in
the
2022
three
fiscal
year
as
of
this
morning,
Nevada
pers
portfolio
is
up
approximately
three
and
a
half
percent
fiscal
year
to
date,
with
around
55.7
billion
in
total
fund
assets.
L
L
To
date,
we
finished
the
September
quarter,
negative
5.2
for
the
over
the
first
quarter,
and
here
we
are
today
we're
up
three
and
a
half
percent
fiscal
year
to
date,
where
we'll
end
the
fiscal
year
as
anyone's
you
know,
certainly
anyone's
guess,
but
I
think
you
know,
given
the
the
the
federal
reserve's
current
aggressive
rate,
hiding
regime
to
bring
inflation
down
additional
volatility
throughout
the
rest
of
the
year
wouldn't
be
wouldn't
be
surprising.
L
L
Really
the
thing
that's
been
Making
Waves
across
markets
recently
has
been
the
the
dramatic
increase
in
in
interest
rates
in
March
2020
10-year
treasury
Bonds
were
trading
at
50
basis
points,
so
the
yield
on
the
10-year
treasury
bond
was
50,
50
basis
points
or
0.5
percent.
Today,
they're
been
hovering
around
three
and
a
half
percent.
They
were
actually
above
four
percent
earlier
in
the
fiscal
year,
but
the
higher
yield
for
fixed
income
securities
portends
a
much
stronger
foundation
for
for
future
returns
for
public
Pension
funds.
L
It
will
be
the
more
normalized
interest
rate
environment
is
a
much
better
and
stronger
foundation
for
for
prospective
returns
than
when
rates
were
at
historic
lows,
and
that
concludes
my
arms.
J
You
for
your
presentation,
thank
you,
madam
chair
and
I
I,
can
imagine
the
the
stress
that
you
have
to
endure
with
the
market
fluctuations
that
we've
certainly
seen
in
the
past
12
months,
but
with
the
prediction
of
you
know,
I
think
that
they
raised
interest
rates
again
today
and
the
Market's,
certainly
seeing
a
reflection,
is
over
300
points
down
today
and
the
the
prospects
of
a
potential
recession.
Is
that
going
to
change
your
investment
strategies
as
we
come
into
2023.
L
In
short,
that
will
not
change
our
long-term
approach
here
at
Nevada
purse.
We
do
try
to
maintain
a
long
time
Horizon,
but
I
think
that
the
situation
that
you
just
pointed
to,
obviously
the
FED
today
raising
rates
again
where
the
terminal
rate
will
be
and
and
when
the
FED
ultimately
stops,
whether
or
not
there's
a
soft
Landing
or
we
ultimately
experience
a
recession
will
certainly
impact
Nevada's
return
for
the
for
the
current
fiscal
year
and
probably
the
coming
years
as
well.
L
However,
one
of
the
things
that
we
tried
to
do
at
Nevada
purse
there's
basically
two
things
that
we
know
we
can
control.
We
control
our
fees,
so
we
keep
our
fees
low.
The
other
thing
that
we
can
do
is
is
maintain
a
discipline
of
approach
throughout
the
market
cycle.
So
that's
one
of
the
things
that
we've
been
able
to
do
I,
think
to
to
a
high
degree
of
success
within
our
Investment
Portfolio
is
that
we
haven't
changed
our
approach
throughout
the
market
cycle.
L
We
sold
roughly
five
percent
in
equities
back
into
in
in
the
fall
of
2021,
where
we
rebalanced
back
into
equities
in
June
of
2022,
we'll
continue
to
deploy
an
approach
like
that.
It's
a
mechanical,
rules-based
approach
that
we
follow,
but
the
liquidity
in
our
portfolio
and
and
the
high
degree
of
liquidity
in
our
in
our
portfolio
makes
that
an
option
for
us
and
it
makes
it
relatively
easy
for
us
to
do
so.
There
might
be
some
rebalancing,
but
from
a
long-term,
I
guess
strategic
perspective.
J
If
I
can
follow
up,
are
there
are
there
any
thresholds
that
would
require
you
to
alert
the
legislature
in
the
event
that
the
market
continues
a
downward
slide,
where
our
our
percentage
of
funding,
if
you
will
or
unfunded
liability,
increases
to
a
point
where
it
becomes
a
factor
that
the
legislature
should
know
and
in
my
prior
experience
in
another
state
legislature
which
which
had
a
a
much
larger
fund
than
Nevada's
fund,
there
were
many
instances
where
the
state
had
to
actually
take
general
fund
money
and
put
it
into
the
pension
system
because
it
fell
below
certain
thresholds.
J
Has
that
been
an
issue
in
Nevada?
As
a
newcomer?
Has
the
state
had
to
supplant
the
the
the
pension
fund
to
make
sure
that
our
unfunded
liability
doesn't
fall
below
a
certain
threshold
level?.
K
S
for
the
record
that
has
never
happened
in
Nevada.
We
part
of
of
our
approach
and
part
of
where
we
are
a
little
bit
different.
Is
you
know
our
contribution
rates
are
based
on
the
Actuarial
valuation
so
that
we
tend
to
always
make
the
contributions
we're
supposed
to
make,
and
that's
not
always
true
of
other
states
a
lot
of
times.
They
have
that
statutory
rate
that
doesn't
necessarily
pay
the
the
rate.
K
The
other
thing
about
Nevada
Is,
We
I,
we're
in
our
75th
year,
but
I
call
us
a
bit
of
a
young
Fund
in
the
sense
that
we
went
cash
flow
negative.
So
to
speak
from
the
the
perspective
of
contributions
to
benefits
much
later
than
a
lot
of
funds,
and
we
are
much
less
so.
Cash
flow,
negative
and,
as
C
said,
we're
fairly
liquid.
So
we've
never
had
that
kind
of
that
kind
of
event
happened
for
us.
We
don't
have
any
legal
thresholds
by
which
we
report.
J
I'll
just
end
by
saying,
I
want
to
compliment
you
if
you're
only
at
a
5.2
percent
decrease
year
in
the
year
2022,
your
investment
strategies
have
been
pretty
robust
and
pretty
conservative,
because
certainly
the
private
sector
that's
been
involved
in
the
market,
has
seen
much
larger
losses
than
the
state
has
so
I
want
to.
Thank
you
for
your
your
student,
your
student
protection
of
the
public
funds.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
Tina
list
for
the
record
item.
5.5
in
your
packet
on
page
357
is
an
update
on
the
benefit
provided
to
certain
Educational
Employees
pursuant
to
NRS
391.165.
K
This
is
a
benefit
that
was
put
in
place
by
the
legislature
as
a
as
an
incentive
for
certain
employees
to
work
at
schools
that
have
been
designated
at
needs
or
as
needs
improvements,
or
at
least
65
percent
of
the
pupils
are
children
who
are
at
risk.
Additionally,
this
benefit
was
available
to
Any
teacher
who
holds
an
endorsement
in
mathematics,
science,
special
education
or
English
as
a
second
language,
and
if
they've
met
all
other
requirements.
K
This
was
a
program
wherein,
if
they
met
the
qualifications,
the
employer
that
being
their
school
district,
would
purchase
one-fifth
of
a
year
of
service
credit
for
that
teacher
for
every
year
that
they
qualified
up
to
a
year
of
service
credit,
section
4
of
ab1,
of
the
23rd
special
session
repealed.
This
benefit
effective,
July,
1st,
2007.
K
and
phases
it
out
over
time.
So
you
might
wonder
why
in
2022
we
are
still
talking
about
this
benefit,
but
the
way
that
it
was
phased
out
is,
if
an
employee
elected
to
continue
in
the
one-fifth
of
a
year
purchase
program.
There
are
participation
ceased
when
the
employee
had
received
after
the
election
one
year
of
service
credit,
because
people
move
in
and
out
of
being
eligible.
We
do
still
have
people
who
elected
prior
to
2007
to
participate
in
this
program
who
have
not
had
a
full
year
of
service
credit
purchased
for
them.
K
The
spreadsheet,
on
page
357
reflects
purchases
for
calendar
years
2021
and
2022,
and
calendar
year
2021.
The
system
received
266
thousands,
three
695
for
44
purchases.
In
2022
it
was
250
000,
250
153
for
39
purchases.
So
you'll
see
this
is
phasing
out,
but
there
are
still
some
people
eligible
for
this
benefit
right
now
it
is
all
within
Clark
and
Washoe
counties.
K
Since
Inception
the
system
has
received
over
148
million
dollars
for
41
771
purchases,
so
I
do
believe
we
are
on
the
tail
end
of
this,
and
hopefully
the
next
few
irbc
meetings
will
be
the
last
that
we
report
on
this
benefit.
A
K
M
See
you
good
morning
good
to
see
all
of
you
as
well
as
Tina,
said,
on
the
part-time
contract
administrator
for
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund.
I'll.
Just
give
you
a
little
bit
of
brief
history
about
about
the
funds
creation.
I
know.
Some
of
you
are
new
to
the
committee
and
didn't
hear
this
a
year
ago,
but
hopefully
this
will
supplement
the
materials
your
staff
has
provided
you,
but
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund
was
created
in
2007.
M
It
was
through
a
bill
that
was
requested
by
the
committee
on
local
government
Finance
at
that
time,
and
the
committee
on
local
government
Finance
really
had
two
goals.
The
the
first
was
to
authorize
local
governments
to
create
irrevocable
trusts
in
which
they
could
place
funds
that
were
going
to
be
basically
held
to
offset
liabilities
for
other
post-employment
benefits,
so
that
would
be
any
post-employment
benefit
that
isn't
a
pension,
Health
Care
being
obviously
the
largest
one
in
the
one
that
was
discussed
earlier
by
Miss
rich.
M
The
second
goal
was,
since
the
liabilities
for
those
long-term
for
those
benefits
are
long
term.
They
also
wanted
to
provide
some
flexibility
for
local
governments
to
invest
in
long-term
Investments,
rather
than
the
short-term
Investments
they're
normally
limited
to
under
statute,
and
so,
as
a
result,
legislation
was
passed
to
authorize
the
the
local
governments
to
create
their
own
irrevocable
trusts
that
they
could
set
aside.
Money
in
these
are
basically
in
response
to
the
government.
M
Accounting
Standards
boards
statements
back
at
the
time
that
required
government
entities
to
reflect
the
liabilities
on
their
balance
sheets
and
then
stated
that
if
they
wanted
to
then
offset
those
liabilities
on
their
balance
sheets,
then
those
funds
that
were
set
aside
had
to
be
in
an
irrevocable
trust.
In
order
to
do
that.
M
Moving
on
to
the
administration
of
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund,
it's
pursuant
to
that
enabling
statute
it's
administered
by
a
board
called
the
retirement
benefits
investment
board.
That
is
made
up
of
the
same
members
as
the
pers
board.
It
is
a
separate
legal
entity,
it
has
its
own
agendized
meetings,
but
it
is
made
up
of
the
same
members
as
The
Purge
board.
M
The
board
is
authorized
to
employ
staff
and
enter
into
contracts
for
services,
and
then
they're
authorized
to
assess
reasonable
charges
against
the
fund
for
the
costs
of
of
staff
and
any
Contract
Services
from
its
Inception
to
October
of
2020
The
Purge
staff
handled
all
of
the
administrative
Services
provided
for
the
fund
in
October
of
2020.
The
board
did
decide
to
put
the
administrator
Services
under
a
separate
contract.
The
board
still
relies
on
per
staff
for
all
of
the
investment
and
accounting
services
for
the
fund
performance
wise.
M
The
the
fund
balance
as
of
the
close
of
FY
22,
was
701.5
million
dollars.
The
FY
2022
returned
very
similarly
to
the
judicial
retirement
system,
and
legislative
retirement
system
was
not
minus
9.4
percent.
Since
its
exception
in
early
2008,
the
the
fund
has
returned
an
average
of
6.7
percent.
You
can
see
those
dollar
amounts
on
in
the
tables
included
on
pages
363
and
364
of
your
meeting
packet.
M
Although
the
the
funds
in
our
Biff
are
are
managed
in
the
same
way
as
Steve
Edmondson
indicated
earlier,
with
the
judicial
and
legislative
retirement
funds
there,
there
is
a
slight
difference
that
they're
there
are.
You
know
the
minor
differences
in
the
structure
because
of
the
fact
that
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund
is
smaller
than
pers.
It
does
not
invest
in
those
those
private
equities
and
real
estate.
M
Investments
That
pers
is
involved
in
notwithstanding
that
for
the
last
10
years,
the
return
of
their
retirement
benefits
investment
fund
is
within
one
half
a
percent
of
the
pers
fund.
M
These
results
can
confirm
the
board's
success
in
meeting
the
statutory
requirement
that
that
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund
be
invested
in
them
in
the
same
manner
as
money
in
the
purse
fund
is
invested
about
a
chair
at
the
bottom
of
page
362
of
your
packet
you'll
see
the
the
current
12
entities
who
are
participating
in
the
retirement
benefit
investment
fund
at
the
current
time.
M
I
know
in
the
document
that
pebb
did
remove
its
small
amount
that
was
remaining
from
the
fund
and
they
no
longer
invest
in
in
the
retirement
benefits
investment
fund.
As
you'll
know,
the
two
largest
entities
in
terms
of
their
Investments
are
the
Washoe
County
and
Clark
County
Madam
chair.
M
You
asked
earlier
about
why
you
don't
see
more
local
governments
listed
here
and
maybe
some
that
you
might
expect
to
see-
and
it's
just
worthy
to
note
that
when
this
legislation
was
passed
back
in
2007
it
was,
it
was
purely
providing
Authority
for
the
local
governments
to
do
this.
There
is
no
requirement
that
they
participate
in
the
fund
and
and
I
wouldn't
say
that
that
necessarily
means
they
aren't
handling
their
their
liability
appropriately.
Just
by
virtue
of
the
fact
that
they're
not
involved
in
the
fund.
M
First
of
all,
the
the
enabling
legislation
gave
them
the
authority
of
whether
or
not
to
create
the
irrevocable
trusts
at
the
local
level
in
the
first
place
and
then
and
then
once
even
if
they
did
create
an
irrevocable
trust.
The
retirement
benefits
investment
fund
isn't
the
only
investment
that
they
can
make.
The
the
statute
says
that
they
they
can
also
invest
it
in
in
any
investment.
That's
authorized
for
a
local
government
under
NRS
355.710,
that
is
a
I'm.
M
Sorry
I
think
it's
170,
not
710,
but
I
think
that
section
provides
a
long
list
of
short-term
Investments
That
local
governments
can
make,
and
so
it's
possible
that
some
of
the
entities
that
aren't
participating
in
rbif
are
instead
using
other
types
of
investments
in
which
to
invest
their
funds,
and
then
they
were
also
given
the
authority
to
invest
in
any
stocks
or
bonds
outside
of
our
Bith
if
they
got
approval
from
the
local.
M
The
committee
on
local
government
Finance
the
regulations
of
the
committee
on
local
government
Finance,
as
my
most
recent
review
of
them
pretty
much
allow
entities
that
have
over
a
hundred
million
dollars
to
you
know
basically
come
up
with
their
own
investment
strategy.
If
they
choose
to
do
so
and
if
they're
under
100
million
dollars
in
in
their
trust
they
they
can
present
a
plan
to
the
committee
on
local
government
finance
and
have
them
approve
it.
M
So
that
that's
my
kind
of
my
best
guess
at
why
you
don't
see
other
entities
that
you
might
expect
on
here.
It's
just
their
choice
as
to
how
to
address
the
the
liability
for
these
opeb
benefits
and
as
Miss
Rich
stated
earlier.
The
state,
for
instance,
is,
is
no
longer
contributing
to
the
rbif.
A
Okay,
thank
you
very
much.
Any
questions
from
the
committee.
N
Madam,
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
cabrina
Phase
or
I'm.
The
operations
officer
for
the
public
employees,
retirement
system
of
Nevada
agenda
item
5.7
provides
an
update
on
the
status
of
the
new
pension
Administration
system.
It's
called
the
public
employees,
retirement
information
system
or
Paris
work
began
with
the
vendor
tegrit
software
Ventures
on
February
22nd
2021.
There
was
an
in-person
project
kickoff
with
the
vendor
and
staff
on
July
13th
of
2021..
N
There
are
seven
phases
to
the
project
with
the
project
completion
date
set
for
January
of
2025.,
the
Milestones
that
have
been
accomplished.
The
cycle
include
phase
4.1
member
service
requirements
has
been
completed,
the
main
focus
has
been
on
employer
reporting
and
that
has
included
the
design,
development,
testing
system,
Readiness
and
training
and
documentation
in
order
for
our
first
group
of
employers
to
transition
to
the
monthly
retirement
report
using
the
pair
system
starting
in
February
of
2023..
N
Initially,
this
was
set
to
be
in
November
of
2022,
but
was
changed
to
February
of
2023
in
order
to
allow
more
time
for
user
acceptance,
testing
and
also
the
the
development
of
training
materials
for
the
employers.
This
changed
the
payment
Milestone,
but
did
not
impact
the
total
cost
of
the
project,
since
it
is
a
multi-year
project.
N
An
employer,
Advisory
Group
has
also
been
established
ahead
of
the
new
pension
Administration
system.
This
has
been
a
beneficial
resource
for
communication
and
collaboration.
In
addition,
there
were
two
lays
on
officer
conferences
held
which
gave
employers
an
exposure
to
the
new
system.
One
was
in
Carson
City
and
the
other
was
in
Las
Vegas
data
cleansing
efforts
is
also
a
big
part
of
the
new
pension
Administration
system,
and
this
has
been
ongoing
since
2019
prior
to
the
transition
of
the
new
of
the
employers
to
the
Paris
system.
N
A
I,
don't
see
any.
Thank
you
very
much.
We
don't
have
any
questions,
then,
if
you're
ready,
if
that
concludes
or
if
you
have
more-
that
you
would
like
to
give
information
on,
please
go
ahead.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
and
we
appreciate
your
information
and
running
this
most
important
system
for
our
state
employees
and
and
local
government
employees.
Thank
you.
A
So
with
that,
we
will
move
to
our
last
agenda
item
for
the
day.
Public
comment
number
two:
this
will
be
the
last
period
of
public
comment
on
the
agenda
and
as
a
reminder
due
to
time
considerations.
Please
remember
two
minutes
and
we
will
start
here
in
Las
Vegas
and
see
if
we
have
anybody
to
provide
a
testimony
during
the
public
comment
period.
If
you
will
dial
669-900-6833.
A
And
when
prompted
please
put
in.
A
E
You
Kent
Irvin
Ervin
State,
president
of
the
Nevada
Factory
Alliance
Statewide,
independent
Association
of
professional
employees
at
Nevada's,
public
colleges
and
universities.
First
I
would
like
to
congratulate
pers
for
meeting
its
long-term
investment
return
targets
and
for
beating
the
market
benchmarks
in
each
of
the
last
past
two
years.
E
That's
with
just
two
investment
officials
on
public
servant
salaries,
part
of
purge
low-cost
approach,
in
contrast,
for
example,
there's
a
teacher's
pension
plan
and
a
large
Midwestern
State,
with
an
investment
staff
of
a
hundred
who
gives
themselves
bonuses
costing
Millions
based
on
benchmarks.
They
themselves
establish
purse
board,
took
the
advice
of
actuaries
and
adopted
more
conservative
assumptions
last
year
about
future
investment
returns
and
payroll
growth.
That
is
fiscally
prudent.
E
As
a
result,
though,
pers
well
and
as
a
result,
hers
is
no
longer
allowing
negative
amortization
on
the
unfunded
liability,
which
is
also
physically
prudent,
but
as
a
result,
of
course,
the
total
retirement
country
contribution
rate
is
going
up
substantially
this
biennium
and
it
will
likely
go
up
again.
Next
biennium,
the
legislature
and
Governor
need
to
act
to
offset
the
increases
for
employees
that
could
be
done
with
pay
increases
and
excess
of
inflation
or
the
state
could
permanently
cap.
E
The
employee
portion
of
the
retirement
contribution
for
employees
with
the
state
picking
up
the
remainder
as
Miss
least
told
us,
is
common
in
other
states.
That
would
be
more
fair
for
current
employees,
because
a
large
portion
of
the
contribution
is
paying
off
liabilities
that
have
been
accumulating
since
1984..
E
Finally,
with
economic
Forum
increasing
the
budget
by
over
2
billion
compared
with
the
current
biennium,
it
is
time
to
treat
state
employees
as
our
dedicated
public
servants
deserve
and
with
competitive
compensation
and
benefits.
So
we
can
fill
vacancies
and
provide
full
service
to
our
citizens.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you
very
much
and
I
appreciate
your
comments.
Anyone
else
in
Carson,
City.
A
No
one
else
is
there:
we
will
go
to
the
phones
BPS
when
you're
ready.
Please
let
us
know.
A
And
if
we
have
no
one
joining
us,
that
will
finish
our
meeting
and
I
would
like
to
thank
all
of
the
staff
and
our
new
member
and
our
existing
members
for
being
here
today,
and
thank
you
very
much
for
your
expertise
and
I
hope.
Everyone
has
a
fun
and
safe
holiday
season
and
we
will
see
you
very
soon
in
Carson
City.
Thank
you
very
much,
and
this
meeting
is
adjourned.