Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits Pfml topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Administration weighs private insurer versus state plan for Minnesota paid family and medical leave
Summary
Todd County staff and its benefits broker briefed the board on Minnesota’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave program and presented the county’s option to use a private substitute plan; the broker favored MetLife as a private offer with lower initial rates and faster claims service.
The board’s benefits broker and county staff briefed commissioners Aug. 19 on Minnesota’s Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) program, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2026. The presentation described two enrollment options: accepting the state-run program or obtaining approval from the state for a private substitute plan for county employees.
Integrity Employee Benefits — the county’s broker for ancillary benefits — presented results from a formal request for proposals that included more than 20 national carriers and roughly 70 public‑sector organizations. The broker said MetLife emerged as the primary private‑carrier finalist; their quoted blended payroll contribution (employer + employee) was lower than the statute’s initial state rate (0.79 versus 0.88 on the year‑one comparison provided by staff). The broker said MetLife and other private carriers generally provide quicker claim turnaround and a dedicated administrative-service team; private plans also integrate more readily with other voluntary ancillary products.
Staff framed the board decision as a choice between accepting the state system (which will administer the program centrally and is required to accept all in‑scope workers) and filing a substitution application (a one‑time $500 filing fee) to permit a private‑carrier plan. The presentation noted tradeoffs: the state must accept all workers into its pool (which may increase cost exposure and administrative processing times), while private carriers can price and underwrite differently and often pair PFML with other voluntary products (for example, hospital‑indemnity or vision) that can improve claims processing and customer service for employees. Several counties have already opted for the state plan; others — including many public entities — have favored a private substitute for lower first‑year rates and more rapid claim processing.
Commissioners asked whether a private plan’s lower quoted rate is guaranteed beyond a short period; brokers said the preferred MetLife quote included a two‑year rate guarantee. Commissioners also asked about the program’s susceptibility to legislative change; staff said the new state system could be amended by future legislation and that elected officials (including commissioners) will be subject to premium contributions but, by design, may not receive benefits tied to wage loss under certain county pay structures.
No final board action was taken at the Aug. 19 work session. Staff and the broker said they would prepare a formal action item for the board to vote on in a regular meeting if the county elects to pursue a private substitute plan (the substitution application and carrier contract would be developed for board approval).
