Senate committee hears bill to extend state employee health benefits to legislators

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 5 heard testimony on S.164, a bill that would make members of the general assembly eligible for the same state employee health insurance plans, employee assistance program (EAP) and flexible spending accounts (FSAs).

Legal counsel Jen Kirby summarized the bill for the committee, saying, "This will be very quick. We're looking at S.164, an act relating to health benefits for members of the general assembly. This bill would make legislators eligible for the same health insurance... and any flexible spending accounts offered to state employees." The summary framed the measure as aligning legislators' benefits with those available to other state employees.

Why it matters: Committee members and agency witnesses focused on how the benefit would be implemented and paid for. DHR and legislative fiscal staff said the policy question intersects with payroll structure, coverage continuity, and possible budget impacts. Those implementation details, they said, will determine the true cost to both the state and individual legislators.

DHR deputy benefits director Clark Collins described three separate program components included in the bill—health insurance, EAP and FSA—and called the EAP expansion the "easiest of the three." He told the committee that expanding EAP access to legislators would carry only a modest per-member cost while the insurance and FSA pieces raise more complex questions about premium collection and repayment risk.

On the key implementation issue of pay status, Collins said legislators are placed on unpaid leave outside the regular session and, under current administration rules, "anyone that does go on an unpaid leave, they are responsible for 100% of the premium. So you would go from a 20% premium to a 100% premium," meaning members could face full, post-tax premium bills during off-session periods unless the payroll or benefit administration is changed.

Committee members asked whether premiums could be collected monthly or as a lump sum to avoid off-session payment problems; Collins said that is an implementation question the department could accommodate, but it depends on the approach chosen. As a structural solution, DHR suggested annualizing legislative pay or adopting a partial off-session payment (an approach previously used in S.39) to ensure regular payroll withholding and avoid shifting premiums to direct billing while legislators are on unpaid leave.

Fiscal office modeling: Scott Boyd, Legislative Finance Manager, presented FY27 cost scenarios for adding legislators to the state plans. Using staffing enrollment patterns for modeling, he estimated that if about 25% of legislators enrolled the budget impact would be roughly $1.2 million; if 50% enrolled the impact would be roughly $2.4 million; and full enrollment of 180 legislators could increase costs by several million dollars in the modeling presented.

Members pressed staff about whether legislative uptake would mirror staff patterns, with witnesses saying some staff decline coverage and a 100% uptake among legislators was unlikely. Counsel and staff also clarified that federal rules (CMS) restrict combining employer plans and Medicare for active employees and that coverage generally requires active premium payments to be in effect for claims to be payable.

No vote was taken at the session. Witnesses said the presentation answered many committee questions and that staff would provide additional implementation details (such as how premium collection could be handled and specifics on any volunteer leave or supplemental plans) in follow-up materials. The committee indicated it will consider further testimony and fiscal information before advancing the bill.