Travis County Commssioners Court
April 8, 2003
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Item 22
22.
>> [change in captioners]
>> ...is what we think it could be. Could be a little less, could be a little more. We have in there $2.2 million. We have three options, I think. Doing nothing, which is [inaudible]. Two, doing nothing but saying we will look at this again at a point in the future. And the third one is to say to employees we believe we ought to leave that money there and try to continue the county's good policy and practice of picking up 100% of the employee health insurance cost. If in fact the $3.5 million increase becomes reality, the per employee cost goes from what to what? Roughly.
>> we have that information -- we don't have that information yet, judge. That will be determined by the actuary and then by the committee in looking at the cost and the tiers because they are tiered in terms of what an individual pays for a family or for a single employee and one child.
>> so we pay the same thing for the employee, right?
>> yes.
>> employee -- about how much is that now? It's about 300 bucks, isn't it?
>> yes, sir.
>> and I guess if you are an employee listening, the premium is the same whether you make $80,000 or $20,000, and if you make $20,000, you have to pick up a significant part of that, it would have a lot more impact than if you made substantially more. But the good thing about this practice, I think, is by picking up 100% of the cost,, we provide the full coverage for the employee, but the benefit for those that make less money is really much greater. Chris?
>> and I think we're las vegas [inaudible] in terms of what's happening over at the state related to their health insurance plans that they are looking at to try to contain costs. Huge increases on co-pays, and again, another one of those things that impacts somebody at the lower end of the pay scale more. So it really wouldn't even make sense -- it would be almost counterproductive to give somebody a pay increase and then double dip coming back in terms of trying to save it on the health insurance. And I think we're all looking at some pretty contained revenue estimates that I would personally love to us sock it away for the health insurance to put that comfort and cushion there for the employees.
>> right.
>> and what we pay for --
>> when will we have a clear picture on the actual projected increase? I know we said 3.5 million, but I do know we did look at ways to maybe reduce that by doing certain things and increasing the co-pay, whatever, blah, blah, blah, blah, several things we did look at and discuss. And I guess my question is when we would have a better handle on exactly what those projections will probably be as far as time frame is concerned. Actually a clear picture. Can you tell me that?
>> yes, sir. You will have one idea of where the committee that you appointed for employee health benefits, they will look at the plan. We are meeting next week, I believe, with united health care to look at where we could get the biggest bang for our dollar in terms of reducing the overall cost. Then we will have another point of information when the actuary comes back with the numbers. And really that is your most valid point of information is the actuary, and that is mid-june.
>> mid-june?
>> yes, sir.
>> okay.
>> were you wanting to weigh in?
>> we're putting together some options. As we told the court with having gone self-funded, we have access to some data that we didn't have in the past where it will identify cost drivers. We're putting together some options to directly affect those cost drivers to bring back to court, and that's the meeting that we're vtion on the 14th with the benefits committee, we'll be able to explain to the committee and have them review this with us and we'll be in a position to present you with some options. And that does include the retiree question that's been before the court as well.
>> I move that we leave the $2.2 million exactly where it is, in reserve, with an eye toward the county continuing its policy and practice of covering the employee premium in full.
>> second.
>> and that we notify county employees of this decision in a simple one-pager as soon as possible.
>> judge, is that -- I’m sorry. Go ahead.
>> and if we could put in that the -- what the premium is today and also the anticipated increase monthly so they can see that if the estimates that we're given are true. We won't know that really until probably, what? June, mid-summer?
>> mid-june.
>> but we think it will be about $3.5 million.
>> I would say that's close. Commissioner Davis.
>> I just wanted to make sure I get those considerations, and dan, especially the cost [inaudible]. When they could maybe be back. I know the cost drivers is something that they may have -- since they have the data available or will have the data available to look at the cost drivers and also include the retirees. Is that something we can have prior to June as far as going to the actuary? I wanted that information to be made available prior to that.
>> absolutely. We'll be bringing the second quarterly report on the health plan to the court sometime in early may, late April, early may, once we have all the data for the quarter. And we'll present you something at that time.
>> okay, thank you, dan.
>> judge, I just want to make sure there wasn't anybody in the audience that wanted to speak on this item.
>> if so, please come forward.
>> I just want to add that I think we're all hopeful when we went and did the budget and put those reserves there that if the jail overcrowding thing worked, that we would have some options in April, but I’m -- I don't feel bad that this is something that is consistent with us trying to have a strong employee benefits package which is salary and health insurance, so I know that there are those that may be disappointed that it's not on the sal right side, but I think -- salary side, but I think it's equally important as for as employees on this workforce, I think this much be a much more important and valuable move on their behalf.
>> the major employees not only reducing the workforce, they are also cutting back benefits, including the state is considering the possibility offer have they done it already asking the state employees to pick up part of the health insurance cost.
>> right.
>> and that layered on top of a fairly significant. [indiscernible] sort of a 10% budget cut this year, and they are looking at cuts also the next couple of years. So I feel pretty good. The other thing is there are actions being taken by others that would impact us fiscally that we won't know until after the session, and so I think that we ought to do what we can to cover 100% of the health costs for employees. But I think it would be risky for us to do anything other than that right now. So I would leave that matter where it is. And plan to put together a strategy to pick up 100% of employee health costs.
>> we will send everyone a draft of that letter, get your comments and bring it back next week, judge.
>> okay. John, remind us we can respond to staff but not to one another.
>> just comment or edit.
>> any more discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you all.
>> thank you.
Last Modified: Wednesday, April 9, 2003 1:25 PM