Essex County approves optional 2035 health plan with county‑funded HRA 'difference card' to cut employee premiums

The Essex County Board of Commissioners on the evening's agenda approved a proposal to offer the State Health Benefits Program’s 2035 plan to county employees, paired with a county‑funded health reimbursement arrangement commonly called a “difference card.” Commissioner Luciano moved the measure and Commissioner Mary Thomas seconded; the resolution passed by roll call with present commissioners voting yes and several members recorded as absent.

County administrator Robert Jackson and the county’s broker, Scott Davenport of Connor, Strong & Buckle, told the board the county faces a substantial increase in health benefit costs next year and recommended adding the lower‑cost 2035 option and using part of the premium savings to fund an HRA that covers co‑pays, deductibles and other out‑of‑pocket costs. Chris Calderon of EB Employee Solutions, the difference‑card vendor, said the mechanism is designed to make employees’ paychecks and point‑of‑use costs lower while retaining broadly the same coverage itemization across the state plans.

The plan mechanics, as presented, work this way: many current employees are in the state’s NJ Direct 10 (often called Direct 10) plan, which has lower co‑pays but higher premiums. If a union and its members opt in, employees may elect the 2035 plan (lower premiums but higher co‑pays); the county then contributes part of the premium differential to an HRA “difference card” that pays the higher co‑pays for the employee. Presenters said catastrophic out‑of‑pocket exposure to the county is limited by a state‑set out‑of‑pocket maximum; the vendors cited a 2025 state figure of $14,720 as the regulatory cap, and said the typical catastrophic scenario for an individual could result in roughly $2,200 in out‑of‑pocket costs that the difference card would cover.

Unions and public‑sector representatives spoke at length during the public‑comment period and during the presentation, urging the board to negotiate in good faith on wages and pointing to broader staffing and pay pressures in county departments. "We are still backlogged thousands of cases," said Lisa Maddox Douglas, president of the Public Employees Supervisors Union, describing service gaps and what she called the adverse effects of long contract negotiations on employees. IBW and CWA speakers likewise urged speedy bargaining and highlighted that many county employees are paying sharply higher premiums than several years ago.

Commissioners asked about downside scenarios if the state alters plan options; the administration and vendors said participation is voluntary at the collective‑bargaining‑unit level and that the model requires union MOUs that protect enrollment and return rights if the program is discontinued. Scott Davenport said the county’s actuarial analysis recommended staying in the State Health Benefits Program rather than fully exiting it and that the difference card is intended to be a budgetary and benefit‑design compromise.

Administration materials presented to the board put the fiscal context in stark terms: a projected $13 million increase in health‑benefit costs for the county next year and a $6 million increase in pension costs, set against what the administration described as roughly $9 million in available tax‑increase capacity. Proponents told commissioners the approach could substantially reduce the county’s premium bill if many employees opt in, freeing up budget headroom for other fiscal priorities; opponents cautioned that premium savings could be eroded by future rate increases and urged explicit commitments on how any county savings would be used.

The board voted to adopt Resolution 34. The measure is not an immediate change in coverage for any employee: any implementation requires voluntary acceptance by each unioned bargaining unit and the execution of MOUs. Commissioner Mary Thomas noted unions would need detailed, member‑level comparisons before a membership vote; presenters said side‑by‑side comparisons and payroll‑level Chapter‑78 grids would be provided before enrollment decisions. The administration told the board it expects union membership votes on some units in the near term and described follow‑up communications and open‑enrollment procedures the county will use.

What’s next: the administration will provide union‑specific, salary‑banded comparisons and the draft MOUs required by the state; individual unions will vote on whether to allow the option for their members. The board’s vote authorizes the county to proceed with offering the 2035 plan and difference‑card structure pending those union agreements.