Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

TAC presents FY27 benefit options to Cooke County; commissioners to decide later

Cooke County Commissioners Court · June 9, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A Texas Association of Counties benefits consultant outlined three FY27 options for Cooke County health coverage, including a current HRA plan and two alternates (PPO and HMO), and explained a 12.5% renewal allocation for the county. Commissioners will vote at a future meeting after committee review.

A benefits consultant from the Texas Association of Counties (TAC) reviewed Cooke County’s FY27 employee health coverage renewal and two alternate plan designs, describing deductible, prescription and county-contribution differences and noting Cooke County received a 12.5% renewal allocation from the TAC pool.

The consultant said the county’s current plan includes a health reimbursement arrangement with a $2,000 deductible and a prescription tier structure (tier 1: $5 copay; tier 2: $20; tier 3: $35). Under the renewal, employee-only premiums were cited (current: $1,154.86; projected with 12.5% renewal: $1,299.20 effective Oct. 1, 2026). Alternate plan options presented included a PPO and an HMO; both would retain a $2,000 medical deductible but would change county contribution levels and some copays (the consultant noted tier-1 prescription copays would increase to $10 under one alternate).

Commissioners asked technical questions about whether copays count toward the deductible and about the timing of a final vote. The consultant confirmed copays do not apply to the deductible and said the county’s selection was due back to TAC by the 26th; staff recommended the court consider the options at a subsequent meeting and provide any recommendations in the interim.

No vote was taken at the meeting; commissioners were given time to review the options and the item was listed as no action for the current court.