Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Benefits Design topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Presenters say a distinct lower-cost plan could offer meaningful savings for some employees
Summary
Deloitte and USI presented an example lower-cost option (e.g., $3,500 deductible, $7,800 max OOP) and modeling showing that, combined with a different contribution percentage (peer median ~12–15%), a lower-cost plan could reduce premiums for some employees and lower Metro's total spend in some scenarios.
Consultants presented modeling for a potential third, lower-cost plan option and why it would need to be meaningfully cheaper than existing options to drive enrollment. Kelly Lewis (Deloitte) and Lauren Christman (USI) described illustrative figures: a lower-cost option modeled as a $3,500 deductible with a $7,800 out-of-pocket maximum, with employee contribution scenarios as low as 12% for that plan in peer examples.
Presenters showed example monthly figures for single coverage that help explain the trade-offs: under one modeled scenario Metro’s premium contribution was $840, the employee premium $280 and average employee out-of-pocket $68 for current design; in a lower-cost plan with adjusted contribution percentages the employee premium could fall to about $113 in the example. Lauren Christman said certain combinations of plan design and contribution changes “actually saves both the member and Metro government money in that scenario.” Committee members asked about enrollment migration and administrative burden; consultants said peer enrollment data are not publicly available and migration projections were not provided. Staff and legal said the committee can recommend adding a plan but council approval and benefit-board modeling would be required before adoption.
