Loudon County panel recommends UnitedHealthcare plan as employees and commissioners raise cost and coverage concerns

At the Loudon County Commission workshop on May 19, 2025, the Salary and Benefits Committee recommended adopting UnitedHealthcare’s Assurance Choice plan for county employee health coverage, prompting questions from commissioners and county employees about monthly costs, maximum out‑of‑pocket exposure and the committee’s process.

The recommendation presented to commissioners was that the county adopt UnitedHealthcare (UHC) Surest/Assurance Choice Option 1. "The salary benefits committee has voted to recommend the UHC UnitedHealthcare Assurance Choice plan," a Salary and Benefits Committee representative told the commission. Staff displayed a total annual premium for the recommended UHC product of $3,969,860.16.

Why it matters: the choice will change how much the county pays and how much employees contribute, and commissioners said they need clearer details before voting. County staff gave two UHC options: Option 1 had no deductibles and capped out‑of‑pocket at $4,000 per individual and $8,000 per family and was shown as roughly a 6% increase over current costs; Option 2 had lower out‑of‑pocket maximums (about $1,500 individual/$3,000 family) but was shown as a larger increase (about 16% before certain discounts). Staff said the county would save a small discount (2.5%) if dental and vision were included with UHC.

County employees and department leaders spoke during public comment and during the workshop. Chip Miller, a county employee, urged caution on a UHC choice and asked that employees be allowed to select the lower‑out‑of‑pocket option: "If you choose to go with UnitedHealthcare, please allow us the option 2 also," he said. Mike Campbell, Lead County Assessor of Property, said county employees had "more questions than answers" after the ad hoc meeting and asked the commission to hear employee concerns before a final selection.

Commissioners and staff ran through the dollar impacts shown in staff materials. Staff reported Option 1 would increase the county’s annual cost by about $230,001.83; Option 2 would raise the county’s cost by about $604,414.08. Staff also reported that staying with the incumbent carrier, Cigna, had a renewal at about 17% in the current round of bids.

Staff gave examples to explain the new plan’s design. Under Option 1, staff said, most costs are collected as copayments that count toward the plan’s out‑of‑pocket cap; staff emphasized that the UHC product presented has no classic deductible and that copays and other specified payments apply toward the maximum out‑of‑pocket. Commissioners and members of the public repeatedly asked for apples‑to‑apples examples comparing the new plans to the current Cigna plan; one commissioner asked, "If I have a broken leg that cost me $3,000 under current insurance, how much am I out of pocket under the new insurance?" Staff answered with the copay examples used in the vendor tools and offered additional question‑and‑answer sessions for commissioners and employees.

The commission was also told about employee participation counts used in the cost modeling: staff said there are 248 total covered enrollments (the staff breakdown in the presentation showed 97 individual enrollments and 81 family enrollments, with other categories noted in the staff spreadsheet). Staff also calculated individual employee paycheck contributions under each option: the presentation showed individual employee per‑paycheck contributions rising from the current roughly $121 per month to about $128.39 per month under UHC Option 1 and about $140.30 per month under UHC Option 2 if employees paid the difference.

Commissioners asked for and were offered additional public Q&A sessions with the insurer and staff before a final decision. A follow‑up salary and benefits meeting was scheduled for May 27 and commissioners directed staff to include the insurance choice on the June 2 agenda so the full commission could review complete materials.

Several commissioners and attendees also raised procedural concerns about the committee recommendation. One commissioner noted that the ad hoc meeting that produced the recommendation included a motion maker who may not have had voting rights; that issue was raised publicly as a point of procedural clarification the commission wanted resolved before relying on the committee recommendation.

The commission did not take a final vote on May 19; commissioners left the item open for additional staff briefings and a planned question‑and‑answer session with employees and the insurer prior to the June action meeting.