Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Insurance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners weigh switching county coverage to NDPERS amid steep rate projections
Summary
Staff outlined options including NDPERS/NPERS plans and modelled how switching could change enrollment counts and plan costs; staff warned county claim history limits joining other groups and that switching could lock plan design midyear, prompting calls for a dedicated insurance meeting.
Commissioners and staff spent a substantial portion of the meeting on county health‑insurance options after Colleen presented a spreadsheet modelling a 20% projected increase. Staff said the county has explored many options and that its claims history makes joining other political subdivisions unlikely.
A county staffer explained that NDPERS (the state's public‑employer pool) could offer predictable rates for the first six months of a year but would lock plan design come July. "Come July, we have absolutely no choice in what the plan will look like and we would be locked in," the staff member said, noting pros and cons and that switching could require a multi‑year commitment.
Staff also flagged enrollment shifts: some employees now on 'single plus dependent' would be rolled into family plans under NDPERS, increasing family enrollments by an estimated 36 policies and changing cost calculations. Commissioners asked for more in‑depth review and for an additional meeting focused on insurance before final budget decisions.
Why it matters: Health‑insurance assumptions drive large parts of the budget gap. Whether to assume a 20% increase in the budget baseline or to model plan changes separately will affect how deep cuts must be and which programs or positions might be reduced.
