Committee hears SB410 to add dependent health coverage to mandatory bargaining topics for school districts

The Assembly Committee on Government Affairs on Wednesday heard Senate Bill 410, which would add dependent health coverage to the list of mandatory subjects in collective bargaining between school districts and employee bargaining units, proponents and opponents said.

Proponents described the bill as a tool to address high dependent health‑insurance costs that they say are driving turnover and hampering recruitment, particularly in rural and underserved districts. “We currently serve 17,800 educators and about 16,700 dependents with a total membership of 34,000,” said Tom Zumptebel, CEO of the Teachers Health Trust, citing the trust’s membership data. Zumptebel said dependent coverage can consume a large share of some educators’ pay: “A single educator who is covering dependents pays $800 a month for that coverage. It consumes up to 17% of their gross pay and almost 22% of their net take home pay.”

What the bill would do: Daniel Stewart, speaking for the Clark County Education Association, said SB410 would not appropriate new money or change the state’s education funding pool. Instead, it would add dependent insurance benefits to the mandatory bargaining subjects (the list of topics that must be negotiated), allowing districts and bargaining units to discuss tradeoffs — for example, exchanging salary increases for employer contributions to dependent premiums. “If you look at the bill… all it does is it adds one new section of things that must be mandatorily bargained for during the collective bargaining process,” Stewart said.

Support and opposition: The Clark County Education Association and the Teachers Health Trust urged approval. Marie Neises, president of the Clark County Education Association, told the committee SB410 is “critical for the well‑being of our educators” and cited the demographic profile of teachers, noting that 74% are women and many are caregivers.

Opponents included the Nevada Association of School Boards and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, which said districts lack the resources to absorb the likely cost impact. Tom Clark, representing the school boards, said many districts face deficits and that adding the matter as mandatory bargaining will impose costs; Susan Keema, executive director of the Nevada Association of School Superintendents, said a survey of districts found 16 of 17 considered it cost‑prohibitive and that only one district — Eureka — had an existing policy that covered a portion of dependent premiums.

Procedure and questions: Committee members asked clarifying questions about whether the Teachers Health Trust is self‑funded (Zumptebel said it is self‑funded) and about the bill’s effective date. Daniel Stewart said the bill’s effective date of Oct. 1 was chosen to align with contract cycles and to ensure the subject is included in upcoming negotiations without disrupting current agreements. Stewart reiterated the sponsors’ contention that the bill “doesn’t change the pool of money that the districts will receive. It just allows them to bargain to spend it in different ways.”

Closing note: The committee closed the hearing on SB410 with no vote recorded that day. The bill will return to committee action if members pursue amendments or a vote.