Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Health Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carroll County officials weigh options after 10.6% employee health insurance premium increase
Summary
County officials heard from Scott Graham of Phil Bryant Insurance Company that claims drove a 10.6% premium increase for the county’s employee health plan and discussed plan-design changes, phased cost-sharing and payroll timing to reduce the impact on employees and the budget.
Scott Graham, an insurance broker with Phil Bryant Insurance Company, told the Carroll County Fiscal Court on May 13 that the county’s employee health insurance renewal will include a 10.6% premium increase because claims were “significantly” higher than expected.
The increase matters to the court because the county pays roughly $2,000,000 a year for employee health insurance; commissioners said that a straight 10% rise would have a material effect on taxpayer-supported budgets and on employee take-home pay. The court discussed several options Graham presented to lower the county’s exposure, including plan-design changes that could reduce the increase to about 8%, moving more employees to the traditional plan from the HRA design, and targeted changes to employee contributions.
Graham summarized the renewal: “We did get, the increase of health insurance this year, which was, 10.6%. Claims were up, significantly, over the past year, and that they were higher than the premium, which is the reason for, the increase, of 10.6.” He also said dental renewal produced no increase but prompted additional bids because of network issues.
Commissioners pressed on how the change would affect lower-paid employees. One commissioner gave an example showing a family plan could rise by about $140 a month for an employee earning roughly $20 an hour — “essentially a 4% take-home pay” — and urged a phased approach so staff do not lose expected cost-of-living adjustments to higher premiums. In response, commissioners discussed a proposed “alternative number 2” that would reduce employee contributions for the VIA (core) plan, including illustrative monthly employee charges of $75 for family coverage, about $50 for employee+spouse and about $42 for employee+child coverage.
Court members asked for additional details before any policy change. Commissioners noted that switching employees between plan designs (for example, abandoning the HRA plan in favor of a single traditional plan) would require a formal county policy change. Graham and court members also discussed the administrative mechanics: the county must withhold premiums at payroll in a way that matches the carrier’s billing schedule, and the county has a 30-day grace period to pay the insurer; that timing affects whether the county must collect a premium month in advance or change payroll withholding timing.
On transition issues, Graham said employees on the HRA plan would retain the ability to submit eligible claims incurred during a 90-day run-out period prior to June 30. He also noted there are options that would slightly reduce employer net cost by shifting plan design but would increase employee cost exposure in some tiers.
No final vote or adoption of a new benefit policy was recorded in the meeting transcript. A commissioner proposed the alternative contribution structure described above; the proposal was discussed but not finalized within the recorded minutes.
The court asked staff to return with more precise numbers showing employee paycheck impacts under each option, the cost to the county under each design, and recommended language for any policy change to avoid unintended double coverage for spouses. Commissioners signaled a preference for a phased approach to mitigate wage-impact concerns while keeping the county’s fiscal obligations manageable.
