Benefits snafu hits police survivors
March 24th, 2009
Austin American-Statesman
When Texas Game Warden Justin Hurst was gunned down in March 2007, in a South Texas shootout, his wife was understandably overcome with grief.
A few months later, Amanda Hurst fell victim a second time — to a little-known flaw in the state’s insurance coverage for survivors of state lawmen killed in the line of duty.
“I went from paying $300 a month to $700 … And then they tried to cancel my insurance, because I had received grief counseling,” Mrs. Hurst explained, her words still shaking with emotion, as she talked about her ordeal with coverage.
“At one point, they made me write a $4,400 check to pay them back, because they had stopped covering me and my 4-year-old son, before I got the coverage back … It was terrible.”
This morning, a group of law enforcement officers and survivors of their fallen comrades rallied at the Texas Capitol, seeking support for two bills that would correct the red-tape problem — to ensure that widows and family members have their state health insurance continued after a tragic death.
The issue affects the families of at least two dozen or more state law enforcement officers who have been killed in the line of duty in recent years, state officials said.
“What a travesty this is,” said state Sen. Eddie Lucio, D-Brownsville, a sponsor of one of the bills and an author of a 1993 law that was intended to continue the benefit interrupted.
“The state is falling short of what it should be doing … and I’m committed to finishing what we started, and correcting this problem.”
State Rep. Jose Menendez, D-San Antonio, author of a House bill to fix the problem, told the crowd: “What’s so shameful is that the you suffered a loss, and then this happens.”
Supporters say what happened to Amanda Hurst highlights the problem that Senate Bill 872 and House Bill 1303 would fix.
Both of the proposals would allow windows to keep their state health insurance at the same price as an active employee.
Within weeks after Justin Hurst was shot and killed on March 17, 2007, during an exchange of gunfire between law enforcement officers and a suspected poacher in Southeast Texas, Amanda Hurst said she was notified the cost of her state insurance would more than double.
Then, in August, her insurance was canceled, she said.
“They said my paperwork was wrong,” she said, noting that her continued coverage was questioned because she had undergone grief counseling in her husband’s death — a pre-existing condition, it was called. “I eventually got back on (the state) health care, but it was for $700.”
Lucio said the intent of the original law was to continue state insurance for survivors at the same rate as an active employee. But state officials interpreted wording to mean that survivors should be charged more, he said.
“It’s just downright shameful that a state agency would do something like this,” said Charley Wilkison, director of public affairs for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, a group lobbying for passage of the bills.
“When an officer is killed in the line of duty, the intent of the law is to lessen the financial burden on the surviving family … I some cases, we have discovered where (the Employees Retirement System) is still charging the widow for insurance on the deceased spouse
“That is incredibly callous and just plain wrong.”