By Evan Falchuk

At the beginning of the school year in my hometown, teachers ask parents to donate supplies for the classroom.  They’re often very basic necessities like markers and folders and things.  The school can’t afford them, so teachers ask for help so they don’t have to pay for them out of their own pockets.

If you’re thinking I live in a distressed area, you’re wrong.  I live in a wealthy suburb in one of the wealthiest, highest-taxed states in the country.  Even here, public school teachers aren’t paid enough, and don’t have enough resources.  How is this possible?

One answer:  health care.

It’s not because the cost of health care keeps going up.  Or, it’s not only because the cost keeps going up.  That problem affects businesses across the country- and while it hurts, it doesn’t mean that U.S. workers are underpaid and under-resourced.

What’s really happening is that there are serious gaps between how the private sector and the public sector handle health care.  These gaps mean the government gets a terrible deal, leaving it with far less money to spend on things like teachers and school supplies.

Here’s what I mean.

Easily the biggest health care story in recent weeks has been how much workers pay for health coverage.  Reports show it’s on average 30% of the total cost.  It’s a big number, but there are good reasons for it, other than simply moving costs onto employees.  Evidence shows that the more you pay for the cost of care you more likely you are to make smarter choices about your lifestyle and health care buying decisions.  Together, these things help control costs.  And so most large, sophisticated employers have, in recent years, implemented a tremendous variety of programs designed to help employees do this.

By contrast, state governments are very, very far behind.

Their workers pay, on average, only 11% of their health care premium.   In 2009, state workers in 14 states paid none of the cost of their individual premium.  And it’s been hard to change – earlier this year, there was controversy when the state of New Jersey tried to get its workers to pay just one and one-half percent of the cost of their coverage (they previously paid zero).  It’s a political problem, because the idea was that state workers get less pay but better benefits.  But it’s a practical problem, too, because building plans this way doesn’t work.

From my experience, and published accounts of what’s happening with state governments, these problems with plan design reflect how bad of a deal states get.  While an average family health care premium in my home state of Massachusetts is about $14,000, the cost of covering a family of a worker in my hometown is about $24,000.  One nearby town has plans that cost more than $40,000.

No wonder workers don’t want to be exposed to the cost of such over-priced plans.

So, here’s my advice.  State and local governments ought to hire one of the many highly skilled benefits consultants who help other progressive employers across the country figure out smart ways to manage their health care costs.  Imagine a world in which state or local government paid something close to the national average for health coverage?  (Actually, why aren’t they in the first place?)

If my town were an example, you could save up to $10,000 per family – without doing any new cost sharing with employees.

Now that would buy a lot of markers.

UPDATE: The blogosphere is full of posts by people with no experience in benefits politicizing the health coverage enjoyed by public workers.  This type of talk will impact the decisions policymakers make.  Alas, participation in social media by health benefits experts is terribly low – and that’s something which must change.  If you are one of these people, seek out these posts, leave comments, or write your own story.

For my part, I’ll be hosting a webinar on September 23 to help you learn how to get started.

More to come.