Trustees weigh TRS ActiveCare option but consultants caution on trade-offs and five-year commitment

LAREDO ' During the May 29 budget workshop, consultants from HUB International presented a comparison of Laredo ISD's current health plans and TRS ActiveCare, the teacher retirement system's insurance option, and outlined trade-offs if the district were to join TRS.

Liz Bebo of HUB International told trustees the district's current plans generally offer richer benefits than TRS ActiveCare. "The district offers a much richer benefit across the board," she said, and cautioned that TRS plans are priced lower because their benefits are leaner. She warned trustees that comparing the per-employee premium alone can be misleading: "It's misleading to say that the TRS plan is better because the benefit because it's less expensive on a per employee per month basis because the benefits aren't as rich."

Consultants listed three key caveats to joining TRS ActiveCare: the district would be legally committed to TRS for five years if it joined; the district would lose direct control over plan design and rate negotiations; and TRS has reported a projected negative fund balance in coming years that could require TRS to raise rates absent supplemental funding. "TRS has not released the new plan for 25-26 yet," HUB staff added, saying the comparison was illustrative and subject to change when TRS updates rates.

Trustees and staff discussed how TRS contributions might be applied. HUB presented "premium equivalent" comparisons and showed that, depending on district contribution strategy, employee monthly deductions could be lower under TRS because TRS premiums in the illustrative models were less expensive. District staff stressed the comparison depends on the contribution strategy the district would adopt if it moved to TRS.

Why it matters: Moving to TRS could reduce employee out-of-pocket premiums but could also reduce benefit richness (higher deductibles, larger out-of-pocket maximums) and would limit the district's bargaining flexibility for at least five years.

Next steps: Consultants advised trustees to treat the TRS figures as illustrative until TRS releases official 2025'26 plan designs and rates. Trustees did not vote on the matter; staff said they would bring clearer models and final TRS numbers when they become available so the board can compare net costs and benefit levels before making any commitment.

Ending: The TRS comparison remains a possible tool in the district's larger budget conversation, but trustees were cautioned the choice carries multi-year commitment and benefit-control consequences.