Greensboro councilors and city staff spar over compressed timeline and spousal surcharge in proposed health‑plan changes

A large portion of public comment and council discussion on Oct. 8 centered on proposed changes to the city’s self‑funded employee health plan, including a roughly 7% premium increase, higher deductibles, an increased co‑pay for certain weight‑loss drugs and a new spousal surcharge.

Dave Coker, president of the Professional Firefighters of Greensboro and a resident of District 2, told the council the proposed changes "will have a serious negative financial impact on all employees, but especially those employees at the lower end of the pay scale" and asked council to "maintain the 2025 healthcare rates at their current levels and remove the spousal penalty." Coker said employees learned about the changes with only days to act and characterized the combined increases as effectively a pay cut for many families.

City Manager Davis (staff) told council the city’s health‑insurance fund has been operating at a deficit, taking in approximately $50 million and spending about $57 million in the most recent completed year, producing a roughly $7 million gap. Davis said the package of proposed changes was designed to recover about $2 million of that shortfall while preserving the city’s long‑standing roughly 75/25 taxpayer/employee contribution balance. He told council the plan includes targeted co‑pay increases for high‑use drugs (he cited Ozempic/Wegovy as examples) and that stop‑loss coverage kicks in for individual catastrophic claims above $350,000.

Council members expressed repeated concern about timing and communication. Several asked whether the changes could be phased in, whether alternatives (raising maximum out‑of‑pocket limits or tiered approaches) had been modeled, and for a breakdown of how much each proposed change would contribute to the estimated $2 million in savings. Davis acknowledged the timing was compressed because open enrollment runs on a calendar year and staff must have selections entered by Oct. 27; he said staff had distributed notice via an employee newsletter and scheduled roughly 18 department meetings plus an open‑enrollment session at the Coliseum.

What council asked for: Multiple members asked staff to provide a clear, itemized analysis showing the projected savings for each change, data on how many employees would be affected by the spousal surcharge, and options for a phased implementation or other trade‑offs. Manager Davis committed to returning with further details and noted that any direction council provides will be followed by staff.

What’s next: The changes described by staff are administrative and were not a formal ordinance or council vote at the meeting. Council asked staff to follow up quickly with the requested breakdowns and to consider additional communication and potential phased approaches before employees must make plan elections.