Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woodstock CUSD 200 board approves 7.5% medical, 5% dental premium increases
Summary
The board approved a 7.5% increase to the district medical premium and a 5% increase to dental coverage after an insurance committee recommended the change, citing higher prescription drug claims and inflationary pressure.
The Woodstock Community Unit School District 200 Board of Education on June 16 approved increases to the district's employee insurance premiums, accepting the insurance committee's recommendation for a 7.5% rise in medical rates and a 5% rise in dental rates.
Board members heard that the insurance committee, which met June 8 and included district and bargaining-group representatives, reviewed plan performance and heard from longtime consultant David Herr. Herr told the board the plan has performed well but recommended the increases because of rising claim activity and inflation; he said prescription drugs accounted for much of the growth. "Where he saw the greatest increase was with prescription drugs," a presenter reported.
During discussion, board members compared the proposed increase with industry norms; a committee presenter noted many plans are seeing double-digit increases and called the district's recommended 7.5% medical increase comparatively modest. The board moved to approve the recommendation as printed on the meeting materials (suggested motion on page 165) and carried the motion on roll call.
The motion was made by Mr. Hommel and seconded by Ms. Lewis and Dr. Bidwell. Roll-call votes recorded yes from Mr. Hommel, Dr. Bidwell, Mr. Parisi, Mr. Hedley, Mr. Maselli and Mr. Gilmore. The motion carried.
The materials presented to the board tie the rate change to the plan year described in the report; the motion language in the record contains inconsistent year dates for the coverage period (the presenter referenced the 2023 plan year while the motion text included a July 1, 2016–June 30, 2017 date). The board did not amend the motion on the floor; the administrative materials should be consulted for the operative contract year and effective dates.
The board did not direct additional follow-up beyond approval; there was no separate budget amendment presented at the meeting to show the projected district cost impact.
