Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, May 11, 2010,
Item 7
>> item no. 7. Consider and take appropriate action on travis committee recommendations regarding fiscal year 2011 group benefit health plan changes and rates, which would become effective october 1, 2010: a. All option 1 benefit changes proposed, including making nexium ineligible on the pharmacy plan; b. Rate changes as proposed for both employees and county; c. Proposed increase in the individual stoploss amount to $200,000 to help mitigate the stoploss premium increase from 19% to 9.9%; d. Removal of the $2,000,000 lifetime maximum as required by the healthcare reform act; e. Releasing information and holding informational sessions on proposed fiscal year 2011 plan benefit and rate changes to employees and retirees; f. Conduct open enrollment from july 19th through august 20th; g. Default coverage of cepo employee only and basic life only if employees do not complete open enrollment; and h. Authorize risk and benefit manager to apply for the new early retiree 80% reinsurance subsidy described in the healthcare reform act. Are we taking these one subpart at a time?
>> uh-huh.
>> okay.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners, we are pleased to be here before you to talk about the fiscal year 2011 health care benefits that we are recommending. The employee benefits committee has met, debated the issues at hand. Remind the court that we had 16 quarters of no increase in trend that resulted in no increase in premium, no change in benefits. But we are at a point now where 2011 is presenting some challenges. In some ways they are exciting because of the health care reform act, which officially is known as the patient protection and affordability care act, health care and education reconciliation act, and we just refer to it as "the act". We have incorporated some of those aspects into our recommendations. With us today, norman mccray from hr, travis gatlin from po, dr. Harry deer the medical director, john barline our actuary with
>> [indiscernible] u.s.a. The committee in its work looked at a balance and an equitable approach to making changes necessary to protect the integrity of the fund and the benefits the employees have come to enjoy. The balance we struck was between premium increase and increase at the point of service, which is where treatment is rendered, that would be co-pays, co-insurance and deductibles. The committee worked very hard. We had debate and we did reach conclusion that that was the best approach to come back to court and recommend. So that's our option 1. There are two other options, but we don't feel that they are as viable as option 1. In 7 a, there's a discussion of -- of pharmacy drug nexium, that will be discussed here, that's one aspect of what we look at when we determine what benefits there are, the cost of what those benefits are to maintain. I think that the information that we're going to share with you in just a few minutes will support that. I'll ask cindy to talk about option 1 just if general terms and -- just in general terms and then we can talk about the nexium issue.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners. Cindy
>> [indiscernible], hrmd. The option that the benefit committee is recommending is option 1 and the easiest way to go through option 1 would really be to look at page 6. Anything that is bolded and highlighted are things that we're anticipating changing. We are going to ask for an increase in the calendar year deductible. And we're going for the first time to -- to suggest that we put a deductible on the epo plan, the 100% plan. And in the past it's never had a calendar year deductible, but -- but again as part of the being equitable and doing small changes, we wanted to -- to implement a $100 calendar year deductible on the epo, we wanted to increase the ppo deductible from $200 to $300 and on the co-insured epo we wanted to go from 400 to $500. The deductible comes into play when someone has services outside of the doctor's office. When they just go to the doctor's office, the physician's office for a visit, they pay their office visit co-pays but no deductible. If they to go the hospital or if they are sent out for lab work or xrays, that's when the deductible comes into play. They would need to meet that deductible before the plan pays anything. We are asking for an increase on the calendar year deductibles. Then going down to the out of pocket amount, currently the ppo and the co-insured epo has $1,500 in out of pocket. We're asking for an increase of $500 to take that to $2,000 for each of those plans. Now, the out of pocket, if you will remember, consists only of the calendar year deductible and then the 10% or the 20% that the employees pay, depending on which plan they are on. If we are looking at the ppo, the out of pocket would consist only of the calendar year deductible and the 10% that someone might pay when that amount reaches $2,000 then the plan goes to 100% for the rest of the calendar year. So we have a fairly low out of pocket currently compared to other areas. Do i have comparisons that i will pass out to you in just a moment. We are asking for an increase in the ppo and come co-insured epo, on the epo we left it at one thousand dollars, if you are on the 100% plan, you don't really ever have any out of pocket expenses, so a person never really meets that thousand dollars in any case, so there was really no need to change it. Going down to the office visit co-pay, the primary care office visits, we're asking for a five dollar increase in the office visit co-pays for both primary and specialists. That would bring the primary office visit co-pay on the epo up to $30 for specialists it would be $45. On the ppo, it would go up to $25, and for specialists it would be $40.
>> so the specialists cost now is $40?
>> no.
>> right now on the epo, yes, a specialist cost is $40 it would take it to $45. We are asking for a five dollar increase on the office visit co-pays.
>> okay.
>> again, those are comparable to what we're seeing in the area. The hospital admissions co-pay, currently is -- is $100 and we're asking for it to go to $200. For those of you that looked at the united health care annual report, we're still having a very high utilization of hospital stays and also of the er, so we are recommending an increase in the hospital admit co-pay from $100 to $200. You only pay that when you are admitted to the hospital and you stay overnight. Now, the er, admit, or er co-pay, last year remember we took it from 50 to $100, we saw that -- step worked. We had less hospital er admissions. But the problem is that we're still way above the curve. We started behind the 8 ball, so to speak. We had a lot of er utilization that was higher than normal even at that points. We saw the step that we took last year working, we're going to ask for an increase of 25 more dollars on the er co-pay. So that would take it to $125 on all plans. Then on the pharmacy co-pays, again we're asking for a $5 increase on the middle and top tiers, we wanted to keep the generic at $10. And then we went from 25 to 30 and from 45 to 50 on the -- let me explain what those three tiers are. The $10 is a generic tier. If you are using generic medication, you would not have any change in your pharmacy co-pay. If you are using a name brand medication, that does not have a generic available, that's the middle tier. We are asking for a $5 increase on that. The third tier is if you are using a name brand medication and there is a generic available but you are choosing not to use that generic, this is totally within someone's control, not to ever have to be in that third tier. Then again corresponding changes to the mail order. Because for mail order you can get a 90 day supply and you pay two months co-pay. So again the -- the increases would apply to mail order as well. And then the last piece that we want to do is the nexium. Last year, in 2009, travis county spent $293,000 over $293,000 on nexium. It's a drug that treats acid reflux and ulcers. Which if you stop to think about it, we probably all have a lot of -- of stress and that's why we're using so much of the nexium. But there are a lot of other drugs that can -- can do the same thing as nexium. I wanted to have -- to have matt just real quick, matt,.
>> good morning, judge, commissioners, i just wanted to add a comment that this is a very common change that we see within the industry, both for -- for our public sector, customers, and for our private sector firms. A lot of health plans now are -- are limiting and excluding nexium. 100% of our commercial fully insured business does not cover nexium at this points, i would say it's probably 60 to 75% of ourself funded entities do not cover nexium at this points, also.
>> what's your full name.
>> i'm sorry, matt noltey, with united health care.
>> so there's no question that there are generic drugs available to -- to provide the same i guess health benefit.
>> correct. That --
>>
>> [indiscernible] to address that so everyone knows.
>> what's available.
>> well, it's -- the -- this group of drugs, this -- good morning, judge and commissioners and i'm -- i'm dr. Harry deer. There are these group of drugs which includes nexium, inhibitors, they reduce acid and used for various conditions such as reflux, peptic ulcers, other conditions where there's an increase of acid, all of the clinical studies that have been done so that the structured mechanism of action is very, very similar and there's very -- very few differences between them and the clinical significance of those differences are very -- are very -- very -- may not be significant. Nexium is actually very similar to prilosec, which is available over the counter, the -- very similar in structure. The -- the -- the over the counter version of prilosec is amaprosyl, the generic of nexium is very similar in structure, but just very little of it. And clinically, they are very similar in all aspects. So making a change from one to the other will -- clinically won't be very significant.
>> so what happens if -- if -- if -- if an employee elects -- retiree or whoever is in the system, elects not to use the generic and say, well, heck with it, i want to stay with nexium, what happens in that regard, even though we see that midges is nes really a big cost driver as far as -- as far as our health plan is concerned. It's just really over the top. It appears. The employees say hey, i would still like to continue to use this regardless of -- even if there's a generic that may be available. What -- what -- how do we deal with that?
>> they would have to pay the costs. Be a non-covered --
>> be a non-covered cost that was suggested?
>> that's correct.
>> okay. Okay. I think that need to be -- really said and -- and -- set out and -- we would.
>> well, is it 100% of that cost or just an increased co-pay.
>> i'm sorry?
>> go ahead. So the increase of 25-25 that was --
>> the things that are covered. Right.
>> medication that's are covered, pharmacy.
>> that would be for the other name brands.
>> that's correct.
>> the nexium you would pay 100% of the costs.
>> what is -- what is -- what represents 100% of the cost? What is it?
>> i could probably give the travis county --
>> [indiscernible] in looking at this, last year nexium costs $192 per prescription. Now there could be different doses, so this is just the net prescription. This year about $200, so if it's $200 for the plan for its prescription, they are paying $45, i don't know if that's what they would pay if they said they didn't have insurance. But it's costs the plan about $245 per prescription. The generic equivalents are available, 17, $18.
>> [one moment please for change in captioners] seep.
>> there have been some studies that have been done on, oh, some inhibitors where insurance plans have changed from one to another and the clinical part of it is pretty straightforward, but i think it's from the patient's perspective, sometimes just changing a medication is difficult, but if that is communicated to them by their physician, that this is very similar and just as effective and it's the same structurally in the way it works and i think it should work.
>> if we come back and the court decides to do this because these are the recommendations but if the court decides to accept what we are looking at here today, that should be listed here today, in other words, nexium not covered -- nexium, 100% out of pocket for user of it, how would that be detected,s and i guess that folks really understand that this is not a covered item anymore in the future?
>> so we would have to go out in the departments to do training on all of these other benefit changes as well and that would be part of what we would stress to people and we would also send out e-mails so maybe someone who didn't attend the training would also be aware this is a pending change.
>> okay.
>> the same thing happened when prilosec went over the counter and nexium then took kind of prilosec's place.
>> right.
>> there was -- i shouldn't say there was a little bit of heartburn, but there was a little bit of anxiety.
>> [laughter]
>> there was a little bit of anxiety from people that were prilosec people as well. So, and it is a very common prescription. We do have a lot of people -- we have hundreds and hundreds of people who take this drug so it is something that we need to be sure we get out there and talk to them about so they understand what we are trying to do.
>> okay
>> the pharmacy benefit management company would be informed and their system would be tagged so if someone wanted nexium and they went into the retail drugstore or pharmacy, that they would be informed at that point that it's not covered.
>> not covered. Okay. All right.
>> gerhardt.
>> yes, i take nexium and i have tried prilosec and all of the others and for a while they worked just fine for me and then the acid reflux became much stronger and the nexium is the only thing that works and there is a lot of times when that's the case and my doctor always gives the generic where it works and i have always used generics when they work. So they don't always work exactly the same. Sometimes there is different side effects. Sometimes they just don't work as well and with something like this, i think they have shown some connections with esophageal cancer, some other things when this is not treated the way it should be and every month when i run out of the prescription, i try going without it and i try using other things because sometimes the doctor says you will outgrow it or quit being severe as that. I always try that, it doesn't work and can go back on it. I can probably afford to go on it, i don't like it, i think there are a lot of folks this is a necessity for them and it is a hardship and this particular thing is a necessity. I don't know how you decide that sort of thing, but it does make a difference. It's not always the same as the generic.
>> okay
>> so the recommendation really is to remove nexium from the plan?
>> yes.
>> really?
>> yes.
>> so i look at all other option 1 benefit changes proposed, i am looking at 11 pages of backup. Are those listed on one page?
>> yes. On page 6.
>> okay.
>> anything that's highlighted in that chart on page 6 is a change. We went through them on some of the earlier pages one by one, just explain what we were doing on the various different changes so it was explained but page 6 is a summary of any of those benefits that are highlighted are ones we are asking to change.
>> let me ask you this and i mentioned this to mr. Nellis, a committee member yesterday. Stormily when we are considering significant changes to the plan, we have a -- an employee public hearing.
>> correct.
>> before those decisions become final.
>> correct.
>> so is our intention this time do the same thing?
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> what we are asking the court to do today is to there is this to go out into the field and meet with employees and explain what these changes are about and then at the public hearing, they would be prepared to voice their concerns.
>> okay.
>> there is not anion that says that? Is that part of 7?
>> yes, on e, per releasing the information and holding holdingal sessions.
>> an informational session is not the same thing as an employee public hearg.
>> the public hearing is scheduled for june 16th and we realize the court does not like to make final decisions on some of the benefit stuff until you have heard from the employees but we would like to talk to the employees about it so they understand what we are talking about and also to retirees information so they also know what they are looking at.
>> all right. To take appropriate action, which precedes a, i guess we can go ahead and just approve the june 16th public hearing.
>> okay.
>> did you have in mind 6:00 o'clock in the evening or during the day?
>> i think we normally start it at 4.
>> 4:30.
>> four, 4:30.
>> it is posted onpbo calendar.
>> if we were to take actions on these items today, they would be tentative decisions.
>> yes, especially a and b.
>> that's correct.
>> we would expect to revisit them before the end of the fiscal year but in sufficient time to give employees an opportunity to voice whatever concerns they have. Then we take formal action before the beginning of next fiscal year?
>> exactly, yes.
>> especially on a and b judge. We understand you may want to do that. Some of these other things you may feel you want to take action on. It is up to you.
>> the same way we notified in the past years the employees and also the retirees, who is affiliated with our health plan, we will let them know the way we have done in the past as far as the outreach to make sure that we have maximum participation in the public hearing, which i think is very critical.
>> that's what the informational session is for -- that's what the informational sessions are for because if the employees don't fully understand what is being proposed, then they are not going to what to respond to, but once you tell them all of that, then they can come back and tell you what they think.
>> yes, exactly. So --
>> if --
>> sorry.
>> no, go ahead. I didn't mean to cut you off. Go ahead.
>> we talked about what benefit changes there are, and there is the other side of the nominal increase in premium that wouldn't affect every employee, but we may want to ask our actuary to talk about what the rate increase would be without these changes and how they affected the premium.
>> hello. John baraline consulting actear with nolman. The plan self- -- we go through a standard underwriting process to look at historical claims experience and forecast what claims will be, and generally, for most employers that leads to a rate increase. We all know health care costs are going up thereabout 8-10%. You all have not -- as dan mentioned earlier, you have not had a rate increase in, i think close to four years now. Experience has been really good and we have speculated reasons for that, like the clinic and other things that are going on, but you haven't had a rate increase and you haven't changed the benefits in many years. Most employers are tinkering with the benefits and increasing co-pays every year and you have been in a fortunate situation. So this year in the underwriting, we did see a jump in the claims. It was significant relative to where you have been in the past but it really wasn't unexpected given you have had such good experience with so many years. Without these benefit changes, which add up to about 6% reduction in net claims cost, we would be looking at lesser to a 15-16% rate increase.
>> okay.
>> and that would be for the -- the total rates would go up and that's what the county subsidy would increase by and employees would also see, for those, where they are paying contributions, they would also see that -- that 15-16% rate increase. So to bring that increase down and to somewhat make-up for the fact that there have been no benefit changes for four years, the benefit -- the increase in the co-pays was a good balance to bring those co-pays up to more of a less rich benefit level and the benefits are fairly rich right now, relative to others, and to lower that rate increase.
>> okay.
>> the other thing is that -- because the rates are lower, employees also get the benefit of a lower rate on which their premiums are based, so they get some of the benefit of having a lower payroll deduction, they otherwise would without these benefit changes.
>> in looking at this, let's say that this information is not available and there was no negotiation that has taken place, what would the increase -- what would the increase have been without the necessary adjustments that we are looking at here, that's being put before the court? Just on that rate increase, without the negotiation arm of this, what would that increase be to the employees, retirees of travis county?
>> john, would you mind if i --
>> sure.
>> would you mind if i answered that?
>> on the general fund side the cost one $6.17 million.
>> 7.7?
>> that's correct. That's compared to 4.47 with the changes, increase to county employees would be a little bit under 17%.
>> seventeen%.
>> increase to retirees would be about 15% and then the premium increases to employees and retirees would be about 14%. With the proposed changes under option one that the committee is recommending, again, increase would be about 4.47 million. The increase to the county for employees -- and this is all noted on page 2. It's rounded up to 11%, but it is really 10.66 for employees.
>> 10.66?
>> yes, a little under 9 for retirees and employee and retiree side the increase would be a little bit above or a little bit below 8%, depending on what category they are in.
>> i think it is pretty important -- in other words i guess -- i know we will have a public hearing, but, again, not having negotiated the scheme of things as far as what is being recommended, without those things of course it would be significant increase to the employees' premium cost, whether they be retirees or employees of travis county. So i think it's something that needs to be considered, i guess, when we look at the overall big picture and this, the -- the overall increase versus the negotiated increase that we have been -- that's been presented to us today. Just out of -- and i guess i need to ask this -- in just looking at the other go bill entities you may have knowledge of, have there been significant increases insurance wise to other entities that might not have instituted situations that travis county has? For example the wellness clinic, a whole lot of things we have put in place to bring down the cost of health care? Has -- is there any rule of thumb, or is there something out there that you can go by and compare with what we are doing with maybe the city of austin increase or the state or something like that? Is there any numbers floating around for that?
>> i believe cindy just passed around a comparison.
>> i have a copy of that right there.
>> what i have passed out is what they have now. We are hearing just -- that other entities are looking at changes. A lot of them are not ready to commit to what our changes are, just like we are not ready to commit what our changes are through and want to go through the process. I don't think we are alone in looking at these things because if it saves money for us on the actuary viewpoint it will save money for others, so other people are looking for changes. I can't tell you exactly what they are right now. We will know shortly as far as the city of austin and other local entities will be doing as well.
>> john has an idea of his client what is his changes are.
>> well, in terms of what kind of rate increases, the typical employer is seeing -- the last three or four years they see 7-10% increase every year and they passed rates have gone up -- they have passed some of the rate increase to employees to either -- through either higher premiums or higher copays or a combination. But typically, you know, not as many changes as you are making would be put through but some of the changes. Increase in the pharmacy co-pay, $5. Increase in the deductible by 15 or 100 or the er copay, those are pretty regular occurrence that is a few of those tinkerings are made each year.
>> okay. Thank you. Remind me of the difference between our epo and the hmo, that some other entities have.
>> well, our epo is a self-funded exclusive provider organization. That is what it stands for. At it is 100% plan where the plan pays 100% of your co-pay which is very similar to an hmo in fully insuranced environment. Anything else, matt, on that?
>> no, simply semantics on mr. The company is self-funded or fully insuranced.
>> and it is similar to the hmo and the one we had before, it is basically high option where the plan pays 100% after your co-pays so the change we are asking for as far as instituting a deductible is a significant change on that plan. However, it is not a huge change. It's something that people would need to be aware of, though.
>> and cpo, is that what you call it cepo.
>> cepo is the coinsured plan -- it is a hybrid plan that travis county developed to make it more affordable for employees to cover their dependents. The premiums on the cepo are much less than the premiums on the other two plans so it is more affordable to employees to cover their dependends. It is an -- dependents, it is an 80/20 plan with higher deductible. You have a lower premium but more out of pocket on the plant so if you are using the plan you will have out-of-pocket expenses but if you are healthy and not using plan you get the advantage of the lower premiums.
>> for those on the list, even if we approve the recommended changes, the the increase for the county would be $4.47 million?
>> that's correct.
>> and the planning and budget office included that figure and including parameters for next fiscal year.
>> okay.
>> okay.
>> so really what we have seen would cover a and b?
>> yes.
>> move that we give tentative approval of the recommendations in a and b.
>> second.
>> second by commissioner davis. Any more discussion?
>> judge, do you want to put that public hearing on that, also, as far as when we are going to meet for the -- for the employee hearing date and time? Is that -- does that need to be a separate motion?
>> why don't we do a separate motion on that and connect that to the informational sessions in e, okay.
>> all right.
>> we go to that next. You can proceed.
>> hi, ronnie, and i just wanted to make the point that i appreciate your professional high dollar contribution here, but it seemed to me maybe i am -- glib is the word that came to mind when we talk about a 6% increase in cost, for me to be translated it into a 16% increase in payment, or how much the poor public is going to have to cough up for it. How does that have -- 10% of it is just administrative costs? Is that how -- is that how the cost difference comes in there?
>> well, with no changes to the plan, the total costs are -- or the total rates are -- need to be increased 16-17%.
>> even though the cost increase was actually closer to 6%?
>> no.
>> no.
>> no, the -- i think the 6% is the reduction in costs because of all of the plan design changes we are recommending.
>> oh, okay.
>> so that's a separate?
>> okay. That clears that up.
>> thank you.
>> any more discussion of this motion? Covering to the approve basically a and b? All in favor. This passes by unanimous vote. Let's jump down to e, the informational sessions are recommended there, and i think under take appropriate action we can add the public hearing for employees on june 16th, 2010 at -- i think we normally start those at 4:30, for those who have childcare issues and they have to address immediately after work.
>> correct.
>> okay.
>> second.
>> second by commissioner davis. Any discussion of that?
>> that will be here in the courtroom?
>> yes, sir.
>> now, your informational sessions will be in different places in the county, right?
>> that's correct.
>> and we basically publicize those to employee who is have questions, concerns or just want information can come by and visit with you in a smaller setting than the public hearing before the commissioner's court?
>> yes.
>> yes. We go into the different departments and hold a presentation and answer any questions and then we are available to one on one questions as well, judge.
>> and the goal is to have those sessions before the employee public hearing?
>> exactly.
>> so the employees are prepared.
>> any more discussion of that motion? All those in favor? This passes by unanimous vote. And on c?
>> yes.
>> we had an insurance number of stop loss claims that penetrated the $175,000 which is currently what our retention is,everything over that on the calendar years leads to stop loss carrier and the premiums were scheduled at 19% and we looked at cost and savings and realized we could increase our retention to 200,000 the and cut the increase down to 9%, so we are recommendg that stop loss increase by $25,000 from 175,000 to 200,000.
>> okay. Dan, explain what that means, for a person who may not understand what that term.
>> individual stop loss is insurance coverage that we have that protects the county in the case of a high claim on every individual that's covered under the plan. So right now every individual that's covered under the plan, the county is responsible for paying claims up to $175,000. If there is claims over $175,000, we have third party coverage that covers 100% of those claims up to the 2 million-dollar max. So what we are saying is now that the county would be responsible for $200,000 on each individual instead of 175,000, in order to mitigate the increase in the stop loss premium, we -- united health care just happens to be the insurer for the stop loss claims and every single year that we have had united health care, we have actually had more stop loss claims than they anticipated so they have had to payout substantial sums of money every year back to the county in order to reimburse us for our stop loss claims. That's one reason that every -- the last few years, anyway, we have seen significant increases in our stop loss premium.
>> so basically the county buys insurance policy to cover claims over $200,000, up to 2 million?
>> that's correct.
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> any more questions or comments? Move approval of c.
>> second.
>> discussion? All those in favor? This passes by unanimous vote. And d?
>> d is actually, judge, a compliance issue. The
>> [indiscernible] which i read off earlier require that is there be no lifetime max on the policy any longer.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> so we have do this whether we like it or not?
>> yes, sir.
>> that's right.
>> that is actually 10-1 for us.
>> discussion?
>> calling the federal government bad names?
>> [laughter] all those in favor. This passes by unanimous vote. And move through june 19th, 2010, second by commissioner davis. Discussion?
>> yes, judge, on the -- i want to make sure that folks really understand the -- the severity of not enrolling during this time line, this time frame. There is a significant default situation that occurs if a person does not take advantage of enrolling into a plan that's been offered by travis county and of course combined the -- under the united carrier, -- united health care carrier, so can you make sure it is emphasized very thoroughly so persons understand that there is a default situation if this is not adhered to? Could you maybe go into that?
>> we will cover that into every session we have and again the e-mails and we do track the enrollment, during open enrollment, how much have not enrolled, cindy gets on the phone, staff gets on the phone and says you better get down here now, so there is a lot of outreach that takes place. I think the default last year --
>> well, we started out with, really 17 real defaults and then we were able to narrow that down to 6, because sometimes there are extenuating circumstances and military service and things like that.
>> i understand.
>> so we work with people as much as we can but it is important that they take care of their business and part of their business is signing up for their benefits each year.
>> and we will continue do that.
>> okay. Thank you.
>> all those in favor? To approve f. This passes by unanimous vote. We just discussed g which is the default.
>> move approval.
>> second.
>> discussion. This is to approve d. All those in favor? Mr. Davis. That passes by unanimous vote. H.
>> -- they have covered a benefit that -- for retirees with claim expense 6 between 50,000 to 100,000, that they will remain the costs to the employer sponsoring entity, it is kind of like stop loss insurance for early retirees, the somebody is there is only 5 billion-dollars to cover three years for the entire nation and so the application which hasn't come out yet needs to be completed and submitted accurately and timely to get on if list of those who will qualify for reimbursement. We are asking the court to authorize for me to sign those agreements and applications to back into the health and human services and on the list so we can qualify for the refund.
>> but we need to do it as soon as possible?
>> that's correct.
>> after the application is released?
>> right.
>> yes.
>> it is not the dan man sewer big power move item, is it?
>> no, it is really a hefty situation -- i am basing my mortgage on this.
>> [laughter]
>> one thing to note on any money that we do get back, it has to be used to help reduce the costs for the early retirees in their benefits so there is very strict guideline on what you can do on the money and they haven't released all of the guidelines yet but we are told they are looking for the entities to help the early retirees reduce their premiums in some way so it is a work in progress.
>> commissioner huber moved approval.
>> second.
>> second by commissioner eckhardt. Any more discussion and this is immediately following the application after we get necessary information from the feds.
>> yes.
>> all those in favor? This passes by unanimous vote. And the motion authorizes dan mansewer to sign the documents on behalf of the of commissioner's court.
>> anything else under item number 7?
>> no, we appreciate the court's direction and support and i think that support has gone a long way to make this program a rich benefit that it is and popular with employees and we are continuing to work very hard to keep it that way and we do appreciate your support.
>> well, you are quite welcome and we know you and ms. Parrington and the rest of the committee will be available at the employee public hearing.
>> you do hard and good work. Thank you.
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, May 11, 2010 12:35 PM
