Pike County committee leans to stay in Hope Trust after lengthy review of exit costs and plan comparisons

Pike County’s building‑and‑grounds committee recommended to the full county board that the county remain a member of the Hope Trust for 2026 health coverage after an extended presentation and Q&A with Hope Trust program staff.

Derek Ross, who opened the meeting and led the discussion, told consultants and staff the central budget concern: the county needs clarity on the potential terminal liability if it left the trust. “The Hope Trust trap, as I call it,” Ross said, “is we’re trapped of getting out of the plan unless we want to spend $65,000 to $70,000 plus the potential of maybe a half a million dollars in claims.”

Eric Snediger, a program executive with Snetica Risk Management who manages the Hope Trust relationship for members, described the trust as a self‑insured intergovernmental pool that smooths year‑to‑year increases by spreading risk among participating counties, cities and school districts. “By pooling counties, cities, villages, schools together, we can make those rates a lot more stabilized,” Snediger said, adding the trust also uses a High‑Risk Program (HRP) to move very high‑cost individuals to alternate coverage and reduce the pool’s claim burden.

Snediger answered committee questions on audited results and reserves, acknowledging the trust’s 2023 audited statement showed negative equity but saying 2024 closed positive and 2025 is trending “more positive.” He explained the dividend process: when surplus meets executive board criteria, a portion may be returned to long‑term members in good standing. He said the trust had issued dividends before but could confirm whether Pike County had been a recipient in earlier years.

Committee members pushed for more ongoing transparency on claims and loss history to help budgeting. Snediger said monthly claims reporting is not customary for all members but staff can prepare and provide reports on request; he encouraged members to route such requests through their appointed Hope Trust board representative or the trust’s executive committee.

County staff presented a side‑by‑side comparison of sample plan designs and underwritten quotes from Blue Cross Blue Shield. The staff summary showed some plans where Blue Cross appeared less expensive for single coverage, while Hope Trust options were cheaper on different family designs; staff warned Blue Cross quoted rates had been underwritten for a Sept. 1 start and could rise slightly for a Jan. 1 conversion.

Given the potential incurred‑but‑not‑reported (IBNR) run‑out liability, the timing constraints of budget calendars and uncertainty around stop‑loss availability and cost if the county exited mid‑cycle, the committee concluded that any short‑term premium savings likely would be offset by exit costs and risks. The committee voted to recommend the full board renew membership with the Hope Trust and to schedule a follow‑up meeting to select specific plan options and employee contribution levels.

The recommendation is advisory; the full county board will take a formal vote Monday. County staff said they will circulate the alternate plan rates to employees and arrange an additional meeting to firm up plan selection and payroll deduction amounts.