Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Thurston County weighs paying roughly $47,000 to raise jail medical malpractice coverage; commissioners defer additional spending
Summary
County staff told commissioners a 2026 insurer quote would raise the county’s cost for requiring higher limits on its jail health contractor by roughly $47,000. Commissioners questioned the benefit given a low history of medical-malpractice claims in the jail and signaled not to fund the premium now.
Thurston County commissioners discussed whether the county should fund an added layer of medical-malpractice insurance for the jail’s contracted health-care provider during a Jan. 14 work session.
Brian, the county’s risk manager, told the board staff had previously recommended increasing contractor limits from $2 million/$4 million to $3 million/$5 million in 2024 and that the county paid an additional premium at that time. For 2026, insurers returned a new quote that would increase the county’s outlay by roughly $47,000; staff cited an exact figure of $48,046.04 in internal detail and summarized it as approximately $47,000. Paying the increase would require additional general-fund support not included in the 2026 budget.
Risk management explained the rationale: when vendors and the county are co-defendants in litigation, higher contractor limits reduce the county’s uncovered exposure. Brian said the county has invoked a contractor’s limits on only one case in recent years, and that most jail lawsuits the county faces are not medical-malpractice claims but nonmedical incidents such as overdoses.
Multiple commissioners pressed staff for concrete examples of the premium’s benefit, questioned whether the county should subsidize a recurring contractor insurance cost, and asked whether contract terms could require vendors to carry higher limits as a condition of service. Staff said the contract originally was awarded at $2M/$4M and that vendors told staff they could not absorb the higher premium without passing the cost back to the county or refusing the contract.
Because the premium increase arrived after the 2026 budget was set and given the county’s tight general-fund projections, commissioners signaled reluctance to add the $47,000 expense now. Staff described practical options: (1) keep the current $2M/$4M requirement for 2026 and revisit in a budget amendment or at the next contract negotiation or (2) require higher limits at renewal or RFP, understanding vendors could decline or increase their contract rate.
County staff did not recommend pursuing executive session for this discussion. The board’s consensus at the meeting was to maintain existing coverage levels for the near term and revisit the question during regular budget or contract cycles, rather than approving the immediate $47,000 increase.
The county’s fiscal forecasts and next steps on this matter are expected to appear in future budget briefings and contract renewal materials.
