Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Pulaski County delays decision on offering spousal health coverage after comptroller's cost estimate
Loading...
Summary
After hearing survey results and a preliminary estimate from Comptroller Mike Hutchens that adding spousal health coverage could increase costs by roughly $1.2 million at modest uptake, the Pulaski County budget committee voted to postpone the issue until the fall budget hearings.
Pulaski County’s budget committee voted to postpone any decision on offering county health insurance to employees’ spouses after Comptroller Mike Hutchens presented employee survey results and preliminary cost estimates at the spring 2026 budget hearing.
Hutchens said the county polled roughly 1,150 employees; 251 responded and 202 of those respondents said they would enroll a spouse if the option were offered. Using county census data and broker assumptions, the county’s broker McGriff estimated about 437 spouses would be eligible and projected that if 25% of eligible spouses opted in, the county could see “about $1,200,000” in increased health-care costs. Hutchens cautioned the figures are preliminary and said the county would seek firmer numbers from McGriff and UnitedHealth during negotiations.
Why it matters: County officials said the estimate is large enough to affect general-fund planning and that a mid-cycle change would be difficult. Justice Stowers, who moved to postpone the discussion, said members must avoid situations where employees without spouses would be subsidizing those who add a spouse. “I do not believe those who are single and carry their children … should have to subsidize those who want to add their spouse to their policy,” Stowers said.
Members pressed for more precise data: several justices noted the low response rate to the voluntary survey (202 yes responses out of ~1,150 employees) and asked McGriff to provide clearer actuarial numbers and scenarios — including how the county could preserve employee-and-children pricing while offering a spouse option. Hutchens said the county cannot implement such a change mid‑cycle and advised gathering harder numbers before the fall budget process.
What the committee did: Justice Stowers moved to postpone the spousal-coverage conversation to the fall budget hearings; the motion was seconded and passed on a roll-call vote with all attending members recorded in favor.
Next steps: Hutchens and staff will ask the insurance broker for more detailed projections ahead of the fall budget meetings and will present the updated cost scenarios to the committee then.
