Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Retired Peace Officers Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to extend pre‑Medicare health coverage to retired peace officers; PERS flags long‑term cost
Summary
House Bill 1371 would allow retired peace officers with 20 years of service who are not Medicare‑eligible to enroll in the PERS pre‑Medicare health plan, with the state covering premiums. Supporters said the benefit would aid recruitment and retention; PERS staff warned the change would increase plan costs and revive an implicit subsidy the state
Representative Dori Houck introduced House Bill 1371, which would make a subgroup of retired peace officers eligible for Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) pre‑Medicare health benefits until they become Medicare‑eligible, with the state covering premiums for eligible retirees.
“House Bill 1371 aims to create another tool for recruitment and retention for career peace officers in North Dakota,” Representative Dori Houck (R‑District 36) told the committee. She cited a Bureau of Justice Statistics estimate for the state law‑enforcement workforce and said roughly 15.5% of that workforce — about 508 officers — would be eligible under the bill’s 20‑year service standard.
Stark County Sheriff Corey Lee and several law‑enforcement associations supported the bill, calling it a recruitment and retention tool and a way to reimburse lengthy, hazardous careers. “This bill…creates a sustained program that could benefit all of us for decades to come,” Sheriff Lee said.
Nut graf: Proponents argued the benefit addresses a lapse between retirement and Medicare eligibility and will help recruit and keep officers; the PERS board and staff cautioned the committee the state would shoulder substantial premium costs and that reopening or expanding the pre‑Medicare subgroup may create an unfunded liability for the state.
PERS Executive Director Rebecca Fricke testified in a neutral capacity and provided technical background. PERS said a prior 2013 law closed the pre‑Medicare plan to new enrollees beginning July 1, 2015, due to costs and an accounting requirement under GASB for an “implicit subsidy” the state had reported on its financial statements. Deloitte, PERS’s actuary, produced the fiscal estimate attached to the bill: a roughly $16,720,000 increase in premiums for the 2025–27 biennium and about $2,400,000 charged to participating political subdivisions.
Fricke told the committee there is limited claims data for a newly opened peace‑officer subgroup, so Deloitte assumed claims experience similar to the remaining small pre‑Medicare pool. She cautioned that if the state or participating subdivisions cover the entire premium (the bill as filed assumes retirees do not pay any portion), the entire premium paid by others would be treated as an implicit subsidy under GASB rules and could require the state to report a new unfunded liability on its Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Members asked technical and policy questions: Representative Wolfe asked whether someone with 20 years of service who retires earlier could qualify; Fricke said retirement eligibility under public‑safety rules and age thresholds interact and that the bill’s language ties eligibility both to years of service and an age threshold (testimony clarified the sponsor intended age‑55 eligibility). Representative Steiner asked whether the benefit should be retroactive for the already‑eligible 508 officers or apply only prospectively; Houck said she would accept a prospective approach if the committee preferred.
Ending: The committee closed the hearing after receiving supportive testimony from chiefs’ and officers’ associations and technical comments from PERS. No vote was recorded in the hearing transcript; committee members requested additional drafting time and more precise fiscal estimates before acting on the bill.
