Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Benefits Retiree Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks to remove 'full‑time student' requirement from retiree insurance to align with state employee plans
Summary
Representative James Newsom introduced House Bill 552 to remove the full‑time student requirement and allow state retiree health coverage for dependents aged 19–25 regardless of student status; sponsor and staff said the change would align retiree benefits with active employee plans and not increase state costs.
Representative James Newsom opened the public hearing on House Bill 552, saying the measure would remove the “full‑time student” requirement that currently limits dependent coverage for 19‑ to 25‑year‑old children under the state retiree insurance plan. “This bill seeks the simple change of removing the full time student requirement to allow coverage of all children within this age group,” Newsom said, noting the change would align retiree coverage with state employee plans and many ACA plans.
Why it matters: The sponsor and benefits staff told the committee the change would make retiree coverage consistent with active employee benefits and simplify eligibility verification. They said premiums for covered dependents would be paid by retirees rather than state taxpayers.
Sponsor testimony and staff evidence
Newsom said constituents requested the change and that Joyce Pittman, director of risk and benefits (testimony submitted), outlined that the change affects very few retirees and would impose no cost on the state because retirees would pay premiums. Newsom also told the committee the Department of Administrative Services would find age‑based tracking simpler than verifying student status.
Context and history
The sponsor said the bill was introduced in prior sessions and previously advanced in committee and the Senate before a non‑germane amendment led to its being tabled. Committee members acknowledged the bill deals with statutory language in RSA 21‑I that defines the retiree plan.
Next steps
The committee accepted testimony, had no substantive questions at the hearing and closed the public hearing on House Bill 552. The bill will proceed through the committee process per normal schedule.
Ending
Supporters emphasized administrative simplicity and parity with active employee plans; no fiscal impact was claimed in committee testimony because premiums for dependents would be paid by retirees.
