Cook County staff recommend private administration, MetLife, for Minnesota paid family and medical leave

Allison, the county’s human resources director, told the Committee of the Whole on Sept. 16 that Minnesota’s paid family and medical leave program will take effect Jan. 1, 2026, and that Cook County staff recommend using an equivalent private plan administered by MetLife rather than the state-run program. The county plans to bring a formal request for board approval next week and continue implementation work with its broker, Integrity Benefits.

The law, Allison said, makes paid family and medical leave available to Minnesota workers beginning Jan. 1, 2026, provides job protection and partial wage replacement paid by the state program, and will be funded by premiums made up of employee and employer contributions. She said the statute covers nearly all Minnesota employers, including full-time, part-time, temporary and seasonal workers, and that qualifying leave categories include medical leave and family leave such as bonding with a new child, caring for a family member with a health condition, safety leave for victims of domestic violence/sexual assault/stalking, and military-related family leave.

Allison described two administration options: the state-administered PFML and “equivalent private plans” (private administration) that must meet or exceed state benefits and not cost employees more. She reported results from a county RFP conducted with Integrity Benefits and compared the state plan and a MetLife equivalent on several decision factors: premium cost, claims-processing experience and turnaround, integration with other benefits, and customer service.

On premium cost, Allison said the state’s initial combined premium rate is 0.88% of covered payroll for the first year, while a MetLife quote was 0.79%; she said that difference translated to roughly $11,000 in annual savings in the county’s RFP comparison. She said MetLife would allow the county to lock a lower rate for two years if the county moved two other ancillary benefits (short-term disability and vision) to MetLife; county staff plan to consolidate those benefits under MetLife to capture the locked rate.

On processing and customer service, Allison said the state is building a new administration operation and has hired staff, with early implementation estimates of claims-turnaround times of up to about 60 days. By contrast, she said MetLife already administers similar programs in other states (including a recently awarded contract in New Hampshire) and quoted a typical turnaround of two business days, subject to complete employee documentation. She also said MetLife would provide a dedicated employer service team working through Integrity Benefits, while the state would have a central system without dedicated Cook County support.

Staff described implementation steps already underway: an RFP evaluation, continuing work with Integrity Benefits, outreach to the county’s three bargaining units to negotiate the employee/employer premium cost-share, and drafting memoranda of understanding to incorporate any agreed cost-sharing into collective‑bargaining agreements. Allison said she will bring the recommendation for board approval next week to proceed with private administration via MetLife.

Commissioner Gamble and other commissioners asked context questions about nationwide adoption, whether the law constitutes an unfunded mandate, and the projected budgetary impact. Gamble observed that some states vary the employer/employee split and said a 50/50 cost split would be a reasonable baseline; she and others discussed a preliminary county estimate that a 50/50 split would cost the levy about $50,000 in 2026 and that Administrator Brady had provisioned $75,000 in the budget. Allison said the final employer share will be negotiated with bargaining units.

A county staff member with knowledge of eligibility and documentation responded to a question about safety leave (domestic violence/sexual assault/stalking), saying certification can be provided by a court record or by documentation signed by a qualified professional, and that appeals could clarify disputed denials once the system is in operation. Allison added that, as employer, the county would not receive confidential submission materials when the state administers benefits and that documentation processes remain an implementation detail to be clarified.

No formal board vote occurred during the work session; the next formal step Allison described is bringing a written recommendation for board action at the upcoming board meeting. Staff also noted continuing uncertainty about some implementation details and the potential that state premium rates or procedures change after the first year.