Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Private Plans topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
CT Paid Leave staff: 851 employer accounts, about 59,000 workers covered by private plans; numbers are small but will be monitored
Summary
Authority staff presented a snapshot showing roughly 851 employer accounts (about 416 unique employers) hold private paid‑leave plans covering about 59,000 workers (≈4% of eligible Connecticut employees). Staff said estimated lost contributions are roughly $25–$31 million for 2024 and urged monitoring of trends.
Michael, a staff presenter to the Connecticut Paid Leave Authority Policy & Personnel Committee, said Jan. 6 that private plans remain a small portion of the state’s program but warrant ongoing monitoring.
"As of Jan. 1, we have 851 employers with a private plan," Michael said, noting that when related accounts are consolidated the number of unique private‑plan employers is about 416. He said 788 of those plans are fully insured and 63 are self‑insured.
The presentation put private‑plan coverage at roughly 59,000 Connecticut employees, or about 4% of the estimated 1.5 million workers eligible for paid leave in the state. Michael cautioned the figures are approximate: "Numbers, you know, take them with a grain of salt," he said.
On finances, Michael said the authority estimates earnings paid under private plans in 2024 at roughly $5.0 billion to $6.2 billion, which he said would correspond to about $25 million to $31 million in missed contributions that year. For comparison, he said public‑program contributions for that period were about $472 million. He described claims paid under private plans in that year as about $23.5 million.
Michael said much of the private‑plan activity is renewals rather than net new private plans. "A lot of the numbers driving the January 1 ... are renewal applications," he said, meaning the application count can outpace growth in unique private plans.
Committee members asked whether private plans represent a missed revenue opportunity or a sign the public program is underperforming. Michael said private plans can reflect employers’ efforts to simplify benefits administration or convert existing short‑term disability plans into medical leave coverage. He also pointed to Connecticut’s employee‑vote requirement for private plans as a likely brake on private‑plan uptake compared with other states.
Staff said they will continue tracking private‑plan enrollment and financial indicators and present new data if trends change. Michael urged caution in interpreting the estimates and offered to gather additional state comparisons (for example, Oregon, Colorado, Maryland and Maine) as they become available.
The committee did not take formal action on private‑plan policy during the meeting; staff noted policy options under consideration to address specific problems such as employers who continue to pay public contributions despite maintaining private plans.
