Travis County Commissioners Court
November 3, 2009,
Item 17
Item number 17 is consider and take appropriate action on the following recommendations.
a, changes to the requirements and process used to enroll domestic partners, child of a domestic partner, spouses and children.
b, amendments to eligibility sections of health, dental and life plan documents as needed to reflect changes in enrollment requirements.
;, make effective upon approval of such changes by the Commissioners court.
and d, conduct full eligibility audit of the employee health plan in fiscal year 2010.
>> judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> we're pleased to be back after several weeks of review of the issue on coverage for domestic partners and their dependents.
something that we found as we were going through this is every time we looked around within corner, we found two or three others that had to be dealt with.
that's the reason we're back here after several weeks.
one thing that I do want to emphasize is, as we go through this, you're going to see that there's been expansion on the definition of eligible dependents.
what that means is as other coverage erodes or dependents lose their coverage, they are going to come on our plan.
so we have an issue to be sure that those on our plan are eligible.
so as cindy goes through this, please keep that in mind.
>> good morning, judge, Commissioners.
>> good morning.
>> cindy peerington, hrmd.
this was a joint effort of the committee that you assigned to work on this issue with jim collins and robin and tanya as well.
we all came to agreement.
as dan says, it will require a little bit clearer definition on our plan of exactly who a eligible dependent is and what is process is for enrolling them and disenrolling them.
the issue was that why the employees covering domestic partners had to provide an annual affidavit of domestic partnership when a marriage certificate is not required of employees covering their spouses except for a mid-year add of a new spouse.
which was our current procedure.
as we discussed it, it became clear that we needed to treat everybody the same if they were similarly situated.
and so if someone had to provide documentation on an annual basis, then everyone else at that same level that would be considered similarly situated should have to provide the same level of documentation.
and we started there and started looking at our processes.
and
>> [inaudible] everything that we're doing now, but currently if you are an employee and you are legally married in Texas, during open enrollment, you just hit the button for spouse and you go on and you've enrolled your spouse.
however, if you are an employee and you are covering a domestic partner, a significant other type of domestic partner, you have to provide an annual notarized affidavit stating this person is your domestic partner again for this following year.
this is the process we've had for many years.
well, we're recommending that we change that process.
and jim, I'm sure, will explain all of the legalities and all of that to you, but we want to make sure that, as dan said, determine for every he will jilt situation what documentation is need to do prove the insurable relationship.
we want to ensure that the needed documentation requires the same type or level of documentation for everyone considered, similarly situated.
and we want to -- this is something we were thinking about doing even last year and we're really planning on doing it this year so the timing is good, approve a eligibility audit of the benefit filth plan by a third-party auditing firm.
this would help ensure only eligible participants were included and eliminate the risk for ineligible dependents.
i'm not going to go through attachment 1 because we figured this was an appropriate time to write down exactly what needed to be done in every instance on the health plan.
and the changes really are -- you'll see most of the changes for spouses and domestic partners, we would not require those annual affidavits.
once you did an affidavit or once you proved -- provided the documentation to us that that person was eligible to be on the plan, you would not have to do that again until it was time to drop them and then, of course, there's a different process to drop someone.
we had to look at children a little differently.
right now we kind of categorize children as like natural children, which is a child that you've had or stepchildren, and then we have what we call the domestic child, which a child of a domestic partner but is not a child of -- as far as they could only be on the plan if a domestic partner was enrolled in the plan.
we've been advised we probably need to change that procedure and allow that child living in household to come on as a child.
maybe not make so many differentiation ins how we're handling things.
so we'll be expanding really the category of child and yet defining it very clearly if we can.
the whole issue of common law marriage was discussed, and that's not an area that we've done a lot of fine tuning, I should say.
so we're going the rely on the county attorney's office to guide us in the area so that we handle common law marriage the appropriate way as well as the domestic partner situation the appropriate way.
but our plan is if you are similarly situated, you will be treated the same and you will have the same level of documentation required.
we have not -- I guess come to a conclusion on what every piece of that documentation will be yet, but we're going to make it very clear to the employees before we go into an audit situation and give everybody a chance to clean up their eligibility, so to speak, before we do any sort of auditing.
that's part of the plan as well.
dan, did I forget anything?
>> no.
there are two parts to this, one is the expansion and redefinition of eligible dependent, and the second part is the process used to verify that those individuals are truly eligible.
and a third part is the audit by an external organization to assure that those pieces have come together and they are consistent so we're not opening the plan up to individuals who really should not be eligible and to have some control.
so there's actually I guess three parts to this.
>> so the requirement of an annual affidavit is what surfaced this for us.
>> yes.
>> so the recommended change for that is what?
>> that the affidavit would be required in some cases the first time that you even road that person but not on an annual basis thereafter.
similarly, if you were adding a new spouse, you are required to show your marriage certificate at that time.
and also to allow mid-year adds of domestic partners like we do a mid-year add of a spouse if there's been a change in status.
a hipaa qualified change of status.
if your domestic partner lost their job or coverage, you would be able to add hem myth year just like an employee with a spouse can do.
we already require birth certificates when you are adding a newborn, but we may require a birth certificate to add that domestic child mid-year just like a newborn.
we're going to try to keep the level of documentation equal and the same, but while still going about and, you know, for our business reasons requiring the documentation we need to enroll someone or disenroll them.
>> I think the initial enrollment with domestic we would ask for verification be it a birth certificate, an affidavit.
but on reenrollment, those documents would not be needed.
>> in d we require a full eligibility audit.
>> yes.
>> and that will be for the first time, right?
>> that's right.
>> but we hope that this is bringing in an outside consultant to help us look at the situation and if we need to clear up some areas this person, I guess, would recommend that and --
>> and conduct an audit.
an actual audit of eligibility.
>> right, it would be handled by the third party.
we've been researching this and we found that for governmental entities in the Texas area, they find approximately 10% of dependents that are not on the plan according to the plan document.
lcra just did one.
i was in a seminar this week, lcra just did one that they found 10%.
harris county did one that they found a little bit over 10%.
so it is something that is fiduciaryly you need to do from time to time, you don't need one every year, but you do need one from time to time.
>> this is something y'all were looking into and had interest in before this issue arose.
>> exactly.
so we thought the overall picture, we thought, oh, this is exactly what needs to come next.
>> I really appreciate you and the the county attorney's office and those from the sheriff's department who also joined in this effort to look at the household as an economic unit irrespective of how the household was constituted.
>> as I mentioned earlier, and cindy did an excellent job with the county attorney's office, every time we turned one corner, there seemed to be three or four other issues that had to be resolved.
i think we've probably accomplished facing at least 99.9% of them.
>> one task that remains is that we need to make it very clear to the employees who is supposed to be eligible and what the rules are.
and although we've had this posted in the past, we haven't made a big deal of them so it's a training opportunity to make sure everybody allows who they are -- everybody understands who they are allowed to have on the plan and what the rules are.
>> how do you document a common law marriage?
>> that's funny.
we've been having a lot of conversations with the county attorney's office this week about that.
there is a certificate that can be obtained for a common law marriage in Texas.
apparently common law is considered and man and a woman.
so if you are in that situation, there is a certificate that could be obtained.
otherwise we would do the domestic partner affidavit if it was a same-sex type of union.
there's some of those things we haven't worked out all the details with that we want to get with the county attorney's office with so we handle it the best way possible.
>> my understanding, jim, is for common law marriage, for a civil certificate of common law marriage, it's basically a civil certificate issued on an affidavit of the two individuals that say that they have been together for a certain period of time, living together in the same household, which is similar to our affidavit for domestic partnership.
is that correct?
>> that is correct, but it isn't necessaryry that you require them to get that certificate.
you could if you want -- you want evidentiary documentation of their common law relationship, simply have an affidavit like you would have an affidavit that asserts that they meet the requirements of domestic partner under the plan.
>> so is it fair to say that the certificate one can obtain from the state for common law marriage, what underlies that certificate is so similar to the domestic partnership affidavit that we require as to be kind of redundant?
>> it -- it would be redundant.
it is -- it is a much more direct approach to simply say if you have a marriage certificate, you can rent that.
if you don't, here's an affidavit that you sign verifying the person you want to cover meets the requirements of the plan.
and then you have equalized the documentation that you require from everyone.
>> got it.
>> so one or the other, common law one or the other, certificate or affidavit.
>> you could simply require an affidavit or you could require a certificate or you could require one or the other.
>> is that the recommendation in this document?
>> I think we prefer the certificate, and failing that, then we would look for the affidavit.
>> for common law.
>> that's right.
>> so if we approve the recommendations today, the effective date is what?
>> today.
actually no.
the issue here is before these can really become effective, there have to be changes in your plan document that reflect these recommendations.
and there need to be changes on the website as part of that open enrollment screen process that you go through when you enroll.
so the proposal is if you -- if you approve these recommendations, that then the county attorney's office and h.r.
go through the process of amending those plan documents, making the changes in the plan documents, there's some filings that have to occur with the state as well.
and when those are ready and when the changes to the website open enrollment process are ready to go live, bring those plan documents back to you for actual approval of the changes in the plan documents and the changes would then become effective then.
now, that will easily be done before the next open enrollment period.
it might inconvenience some folks in a short-term period.
i'm talking about a month or two while we revise those documents who might want to add somebody during that period and it's not permitted, but you really can't put this into effect until you make your changes to the plan documents.
so we need approval that you want to see these changes and then we'll bring the plan documents back with the actual changes drafted into them.
>> so in c, we really should request that the changes be brought back to us when they have been implemented?
if we approve them.
>> yes.
and that's what c says, make changes effective upon approval of the amended plan by the Commissioners court.
so we will bring that amended plan document back to you.
>> c says such changes.
>> c says make changes effective upon --
>> it doesn't say amended.
>> I'm sorry.
i'm looking at the backup that was submitted to you.
>> I'm looking at the agenda wording.
>> and forget the agenda wording.
what it should be is you should do what the backup says which is make changes effective upon approval of the amended plan.
>> what we want you to do is bring the changes back to us, let us know when they will be effective, in c.
>> yes, sir.
>> d, we'll have to approve a contract at a time.
>> we're working with purchasing on that.
>> a and b is what we need to approve today.
>> I make an enthusiastic motion in favor of a and b.
>> an enthusiastic second by Commissioner Gomez.
mr.
collins.
were you about to saying something?
>> I was about to say that there are legal issues.
if you want to hear about those, those are appropriate in executive session.
if you are prepared to approve these changes without hearing about that, then I don't need to talk to you about it.
>> would that advice cause it to seriously not approval aen b?
>> I think if you were inclined not to approve them, it might.
if you are not, it won't.
>> any more discussion of the motion?
>> makes it even more enthusiastic.
>> all in favor?
that passes by unanimous vote.
thank you for your very clear legal advice.
>> thank you so much for your participation and bringing the issue to the court.
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.
Last Modified:
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 1:40 PM
