Rhode Island taxpayers have an interest in making sure that public-school teachers are well-compensated, with good benefits. But the current system of negotiating 36 different systems of health-care benefits has got to go. It is unfair to taxpayers, teachers and especially students — who pay a steep price when millions of education dollars are squandered in ways that do not help them learn.

In an Aug. 26 article “All over the board,” The Journal’s Jennifer Jordan laid out the facts about health-insurance benefits for Rhode Island teachers. There are great disparities in how much districts require teachers to chip in for their health insurance. Last year, three — East Providence, New Shoreham and Pawtucket — still did not require teachers to pay anything toward their health premium.

There are also disparities in how much money communities hand over to teachers — giveaways, called “buybacks,” in the thousands of dollars (up to $7,450 per teacher in Foster-Glocester; $5,800 in Newport; and $5,122 in East Providence) — for not taking health insurance at all!

Meanwhile, teachers contribute far less to their health benefits, on average, than do their fellow citizens in the private sector.

This hodgepodge system seems particularly absurd when health-care costs are exploding, and communities are struggling to fund public education. Rhode Island could save a lot of money — $11.5 million a year, according to the non-profit Education Partnership — by switching to a statewide plan.

After all, teacher pensions are already managed under a statewide plan. Why not health care?

There is no good reason why Rhode Island — whose entire student population is smaller than some school districts in other states — should waste money and time crafting 36 separate plans for teachers. Some teachers unions may like this system because they can manipulate certain school boards during negotiations, and Blue Cross Blue Shield may appreciate it because that company’s own name is written right into some contracts, eliminating competition. But that clearly ill serves the common good. Nor does it serve teachers who have to pay more for health insurance than those in the community next door.

How do we get to a statewide plan? Rep. Jan Malik (D.-Warren) is admirably pushing a bill that would require teachers to piggyback onto the state employees’ health-care plan — unless local communities can negotiate a health-care plan that costs taxpayers less, something that seems unlikely given economies of scale. Unfortunately, the legislation has been killed every year.

Meanwhile, the state should bar the practice of writing a single insurer into a contract, which effectively cuts off competition and management’s right to select a carrier.

Furthermore, the state should cap the practice of local “buybacks” to teachers who choose not to accept health care (usually because they are covered by a spouse’s plan). The current numbers bear no relation to reality — the dollar amount that is just high enough to save taxpayers money by encouraging teachers to accept a spouse’s plan. Anything beyond that amount is simply a giveaway — a luxury the state can ill-afford when taxpayers are struggling to fund basics for students.

Rhode Island faces huge budget deficits, while local communities are groaning under sharply increasing property taxes. Now is the time to make sensible changes that encourage fairness, competition and savings in health care for teachers.