When state lawmakers changed post-retirement health care for state workers several years ago, a number of state employees took early retirement -- all while many complained that legislators themselves would be treated differently and could retire out of the legislative branch with better benefits.

Now Sen. John Valentine, R-Orem, wants to make the post-retirement health benefits for all state elected officials the same as state employees.

Key to SB156, says Valentine, is that retired lawmakers’ health care package can’t be taken away retroactively. “That would be an unconstitutional taking – it has already been promised and we can’t do that,” said Valentine, an attorney in private practice.

Money set aside (or supposedly set aside, since the elected officials retirement plans are not currently actuarially sound, another issue) will be placed into the same trust fund as benefits for regular state workers.

The change, says Valentine, could influence some of the 104 part-time lawmakers to get out of the Legislature and retire early so they can save three years of health care premiums.

That won’t be the case for him, said Valentine, who was first elected to the House way back in 1988, elected to the Senate in 1998.

“I won’t be retiring; I’m running for re-election this year,” he said.

Valentine added: “We need to do two things: Make the elected officials (pension plan) actuarially sound and put the elected officials on parity with (regular) state employees,” said Valentine.

Will reducing some health care benefits in the future cause some folks not to run or serve in the Legislature?

“If you are running for the Legislature for benefits, you are running for the wrong reasons – our benefits are not that good,” he replied.

But, in fact, for part-time service that pays around $15,0000 a year (if one doesn’t look at the hours worked), legislative benefits are not that bad, especially health care.

While who signs up for the legislative health care package is private information, legislative officials have said for years that by far most of the 104 lawmakers sign up for state health care – since it is less costly and has better coverage than most private insurance.

Valentine explained how all this works:

When a lawmaker retires out of the Legislature early, he or she can buy the full state health insurance package by paying the full premium until age 62.

From 62 until Medicare kicks in at 65, the state pays the premium.

After Medicare at 65, the state is then a supplemental package.

(However – and this can be a big benefit for younger spouses of retired lawmakers – a lawmaker’s dependents can still get the state health care package.)

What will change is that from age 62 to 65 a legislator can only get the state health care package by paying the full cost himself.

“There might be some folks who will want to leave (the Legislature) to get those three years (62-65) of (free) health care. That will be up to each individual.”

As the bill is drafted now, said Valentine, it will not cost the state any money in the 2012-13 budget, which legislators are now putting together.

However, there will be state officials – and maybe some lawmakers – who will want to make the elected officials pension fund actuarially sound now. In that case, it would take some of the state’s $400 million surplus to make that plan whole.

“We’ve basically been funding the elected officials pensions on a pay as you go process,” said Valentine.

He would prefer that after SB156 takes effect the Legislature watch what the real payouts are over several years to get a track record before putting money into the elected officials pension trust account.

While Utah’s public employees pension funds are much better off than most other states, several months ago the Executive Appropriations Committee heard a depressing report that in the future the pension plan will take hundreds of millions of dollars to pay out possible benefits.

Those huge liabilities are down the road, however.