By: Morgan Chilson
Kansas Reflector
TOPEKA — Lydia Shontz-Hochstedler was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 at age 32. She accumulated thousands of dollars of medical debt that will take years to pay off.
As a state employee, news that Kansas officials are considering dropping Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas as a health plan administrator raised “serious concerns,” she said in a letter to Kansas Reflector.
Continuing costly care and ongoing prescription medications might be negatively affected if she is forced to change insurance carriers, Shontz-Hochstedler said.
“While I have been enrolled with various insurance providers, I have never paid less for my medical care than when I have been enrolled in a BCBSKS plan,” she said.
When news broke that the state could save nearly $240 million by choosing Aetna as the single health plan administrator and members of the Kansas State Employees Health Care Commission were considering the issue, state employees quickly expressed concerns.
Currently, both Blue Cross and Aetna are health plan options, with 35,400 employees enrolled in the former and 4,500 in the latter.
More than 100 state employees reached out to the Kansas Department of Administration about their health insurance, said spokesman Samir Arif.
Sen. Brenda Dietrich, a Republican who represents more than 10,000 state employees in her Shawnee County district, said she has received multiple emails and phone calls asking her to object to changing health plan administrators.
Others spoke out online.
All but one of more than 150 comments on a Kansas Reflector story posted to Facebook opposed dropping Blue Cross. One person wrote that she switched to Aetna and saw no difference in quality of care.
“Just because a bid is cheaper doesn’t mean it’s better. Over 35,000 state employees have BCBS vs just over 4,000 Aetna. What’s wrong with that picture?” one person wrote. “If you get rid of BCBS I can see state employees leave for companies who provide better insurance.”
A woman who said she is a retired state employee posted, “Please compare by service and availability and not just by bottom line cost to the state. Respect your employees, both current and former.”
Concerns about whether Aetna could expand its provider network quickly, especially for ancillary services like in-home care and physical therapy, were raised by many people. In comparing the networks of the two, commission members noted the primary difference was for those ancillary services.
An Aetna provider at the meeting said the company immediately would begin to expand its network to be prepared by Jan. 1, 2027, when the contract begins.
When asked about the company’s confidence in being able to strengthen its network, especially in rural Kansas, Aetna spokeswoman Shelly Bendit said by email that she couldn’t comment on behalf of the state “nor can we speculate about any decisions the state may make.”
Shontz-Hochstedler said changing to a provider without a strong network will have long-lasting effects and ultimately cost the state more over time.
“When coverage changes and costs go up, employees are more likely to delay care or skip prescriptions, causing health conditions to worsen,” she said. “This will lead to increased absenteeism, reduced productivity, higher turnover, and ultimately greater long-term healthcare expenditure.”
Access to care must be a “central priority” in making benefits decisions, Shontz-Hochstedler said. Aetna isn’t as widely accepted across Kansas, she said.
“A shift to Aetna would leave these employees with fewer in-network options, longer travel for care, or higher out-of-pocket costs, which could lead to delaying or abandoning care entirely,” she said. “That is not expanding coverage, it is reducing access.”
Dietrich said she understands the financial implications raised by the Health Care Commission but is opposed to state employees losing access to Blue Cross.
“I’m very attuned to state employees, living in Shawnee County for as long as I have,” she said. “When we talk about giving state employees a 1% raise, that impacts my neighbors. We have got to value our employees. That would be the most disruptive decision that they could possibly make. People are very comfortable with Blue Cross Blue Shield.”
The decision can’t be all about the cost, Shontz-Hochstedler said.
“It is a truly uneasy feeling when healthcare decisions are reduced to ‘dollars and cents,’ while the real cost for the people affected is measured in health, security, and sometimes survival,” she said.
Dietrich talked to Arif about what employees should do to have input on the process. He recommended that employees email Cristi Cain, who is the state employee representative on the commission, at Cristi.Cain@ks.gov, or the Health Care Commission at SEHPMembership@ks.gov.
Ashley Jones-Wisner, Blue Cross spokeswoman, said the company hopes to retain its contract.
“As a not-for-profit and only local Kansas plan, we are proud to serve the State Employee Health Plan,” she said. “To date, over 90% of state employees choose BCBSKS and have access to the state’s largest provider network.”
Aetna is headquartered in Hartford, Connecticut.