Benefits and insurance committee to order for May 29th, 2025. Susan, call the role, please. Yes, sir. Commissioner Boyd here. Amber Brown. Mike Curtis here. Holly Daring. Brian Gaither. Mary
Hickerson here. Lois Miller here. Commissioner McAdoo. Commissioner Phillips Jennifer Schmidt here. Michael Smith here. Steve Spence here. Sonia Stevenson, Eric Tutoto, Benny. We have a
quum. Uh, thank you, Susan. Um, Madame Vice Chair, have you had an opportunity to review the minutes of the previous meeting? Yes, sir. I have an a motion to approve as presented. We have a motion for the minutes. Do we have a second? We have a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of adopting the
minutes say I. Opposed? The eyes have it. The minutes are adopted. Do we have anybody for public comments? Thank you. Uh, Ed, financial reports, please, sir. Yes, sir. Fund 264 for the month of April, you have
1,865,566 in revenue. Expenditures, $2,747,12. The difference is a negative $881,536. Your uh calendar year to date, you have revenue at $8,46,612, expenditures at 9,712,132, and the difference of1,665,520. And for your 2425 fiscal
year totals, your revenues at $19,794,191 expenditures 22,730 22,730,413 and your differences 2,936,222. On the two on the 266 fund report you have for the month of April
workers comp $97.50 50 OJI6 $67,44062 for a total of $67,53812 and your year-to-ate total $7,277.35 in workers comp, $886,6927 in OJI, and for the fiscal year you have total you have
$893,96962. And that concludes my report, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ed. Uh Susan, let the minutes reflect that Sonia Stevenson's joined us. Uh do we have any discussion on the financials? Seeing none, the chair will entertain a
motion. We have a motion to approve both reports. Do we have a second? We have a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, without objection, Susan, call the role, please. Commissioner Boyd. Yes. Mike Curtis, yes. Brian Gaither,
Mary Hickerson, yes. Lois Miller, yes. Commissioner Phillips, yes. Jennifer Smith, Michael Smith, Steve Spence, Sonia Stevenson, Eric Tuttobenny, thank you, Susan. Uh, item five, the OSHA report. Susan, please. Yes, sir.
This is reporting for the month of April 2025. We had a total of 24 incidences. Of that 24, there was 17 at the board of ed, six at Rutherford County General, and one at the highway. Um, of the ones at County General, there was one at Paul, and five at the sheriff's
department. That brings our year-to- date frequency to 74 with 52 being recordable, 10 lost claims, 32 restricted day claims, and 10 other recordables. Our reserves for the month were 60, 69,345. That brings the year-to- date
reserves to 325,980. The year-to- date amount paid is 65,250. Total number of claims closed is 25. And as of last Friday, we had five out of work and 11 on restricted duty. And that concludes my report. Thank you,
Susan. Any questions for Miss Thompson on the OSHA report, please? Being none, the chair will entertain a motion. Motion to approve. We have a motion for approval. Do we have a second? We have a second. Any further
discussion? Seeing none, if there is no objection, all those in favor of accepting the report say I. I. Opposed? The eyes have it. The motion the report is accepted. Item six is the wellness report. Miss How, you're recognized.
For the current point accumulation period through the month of April 2025, there have been a total of 1,820 wellness points earned by members and a total of 250 wellness goals met. That concludes my report. Thank you. Any questions for Miss Howell on the
wellness report? Seeing none, if there's no objection, we'll accept item seven, the ancillaries. Uh Ed, I'm going to ask you to kind of lead the discussion here. Um we're we got A and B, critical illness and accident insurance. Please, sir.
Yes, sir. So, uh Gallagher put together the bid process for these. These are employee paid uh benefits. uh the county does not have any uh contribution to them and Wes Doer's here. Uh if you would like for him to come up and speak
and and go over this report. If there is no objection, Mr. Do Mr. Doer, come on up. If you will state your name, who you're with for the record, please, sir. Uh thank you. broker uh who has kind of uh led the process on the insurance and the uh the
ancillaries. So, um I promised the committee I'd take less than 30 minutes to discuss this today. I'm I'm kidding. I know that's not what you said before the meeting. So, but thank you, Mr. Dozer. Now, I I'm happy to answer uh
any questions that y'all have. Um, but I'm going to go over some of the highlights. Uh, you know, from previous meetings that we've already gone through and discussed the uh life insurance, the long-term disability, and the short-term disability. The reason that we did those
first was because those all kind of collectively had an impact on the county budget. So, those had to be resolved first. The reason that we're here today uh talking specifically about the accident insurance and the critical illness is because these two plans are
voluntary paid plans. Um so those didn't have to have any resolution um from a county budget uh perspective. So uh I want to start by talking a little bit about the savings. Um you know collectively uh short-term disability is included in this as well
because that's employee paid. Uh but between the short-term disability, the accident, and the critical illness, collectively, if the committee ultimately goes with the recommendation we make today, just on the employee paid benefits for those three items between
the school system and the county government, the employees will end up saving um roughly $440,000 in premiums by going through the bid and the shopping and the negotiation process um with similar if
not better benefits on most everything with only one item on the accident plan that was a change or what we would call a decrement. Um but overall uh increase benefits and drive a large savings for the
employees. Um we started the process u by you know reaching out to the market at large and ended up getting quotes back from 14 different carriers. Uh those carriers included your incumbent uh Metife uh but they also included
Allstate, Sigma, Colonial, Dearborn um and several others. Uh we looked at the benefits and the rates as our uh you know two main criteria. We uh quickly narrowed those down to three finalists. So the three three finalists were the
incumbent which is Metlife uh Unun and then a company called Securion Financial. Uh after a lot of deliberation and looking into the details of all of those uh ultimately our recommendation is to keep the accident and the critical
illness bundled together uh with the same carrier and the recommendation is to go uh with Securion because Securion ultimately had the overall uh best benefits for the lowest price. Um so that is ultimately our our
recommendation uh for the day. Uh, like I said, I'm happy to go into the the details or the weeds of anything if you want to. U, but that is the that's the summary. Yes, sir. Mr. Tobin, you're recognized. Is there a time period that
those rates are locked in for? Uh, there is. Uh, that was a part of the consideration and right out of the gate, uh, the rate guarantee on these two plans is the full 5-year rate guarantee. Um, so in the past, uh, we've had a 3+ 1 plus one. We've been fortunate enough to
be able to exercise the the the two plus ones without a rate increase on the previous, but these are right out of the gate 5-year rate guarantee on on both. Mr. Doer, so uh be clear, your recommendation is for
security and for both the critical illness and the accident insurance on an ancillaries. Is that correct? Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Elim do you concur with that recommendation? Yes. And that would be effective January 1, 2026 with the uh
rates that have been exhibited. Okay. So, um the the chair will need a motion and a second and then we can have further discussion if the committee so decides, but I think we need to have a motion on this to begin the process. Make a motion to approve Securion for
both of these products. We have we have a motion and a second. This will be a roll call vote. So, do we have any discussion? Yes, Mike, you're recognized. With the significant savings shown,
looks like 27% and 30%. What do we attribute that to? Because it looks like, you know, everything else in life right now is going up. Why is this going down? Yes, that's correct. So I mean a part of that process and that's a fair question
uh to ask uh is going out to the market and soliciting that number of quotes and creating a competitive uh bidding environment. um you know that's part of it but one thing I will see just as an industry as a whole specifically on the
accident plan we have seen all carriers over the last several years kind of change their underwriting philosophy uh which is to lower the cost on the accident plan but it what it's done is it's caused more people to sign up for the coverage so it's spreading the risk
out a little bit so it's not just securion uh there were several other quotes that were also very strong but it as a whole we've seen a decrease on some of these voluntary uh products. Um so that's a couple reasons but um at the
end of the day the competitive environment and uh the claims experience is also shared so the different insurance companies and underwriters have an opportunity to look at the premium collected versus what's been paid out for the last five years and that can play into it as well. Thank you. Nothing further Mr. Chairman. Thank
you. Thank you Mr. Cur. Mr. Mr. Dozer, I do have a follow-up question. It's not exactly related to this, but somewhat tangential. So, you're saying they the companies have their models have produced an economic benefit back to the
county and its uh employees. Is that correct for for this particular type of insurance? uh specifically on the accident insurance what uh we have seen kind of industrywide where they're they realize
if they will kind of come down on the rates a little bit more that more people sign up for it so they're still collecting the premium and that does solicit some additional claims but by but more people you have is that is spreading the risk out ultimately so my so my question that's what I thought you
said so my question is are they applying that same business model to other types of insurance to lower the cost to because you're spreading the risk out among a a wider universe. Are they applying those same models to other
products? I I would say the biggest one that I've seen it be more uniform is on the accident insurance. And then on the decrease from the other products, I would attribute that probably more to the competitive bidding uh environment as well as looking at the previous five
years of experience to base what they believe that they need to collect for the next five. Thank you, sir. Any other questions for Mr. Dozer? Seeing none, uh the chair have we already got a motion? So chair's trying hard time keeping up. If there is no
objection, uh, Susan, call the role. Commissioner Boyd, yes. Mike Curtis, yes. Mary Hickerson, yes. Lois Miller, yes. Commissioner Phillips, yes. Jennifer Smith, yes. Michael Smith, yes. Steve
Spence, yes. Sonia Stevenson, yes. Eric Tutoto Benny, yes. Thank you, Susan. Number eight, Ed, you want to tell us what we're doing with hearing aids, please, sir? Yes, sir. So, this is something that's been requested by the office. Uh, we did a a very thorough
investigation into it. The um active employees don't have a hearing aid benefit. Uh, a dependent up to the age of 18 and retirees um have a post 65 retirees have a
benefit, a hearing aid benefit, but the active employees doesn't. So, we went in and looked at um a possible benefit that we could provide without it just blowing up the um insurance fund. And this was something that we found to be pretty
common. It's pretty common with with the two um uh policies that we have now. Um they're not identical, but it's it's very close to what they have. And Molly has spent a lot of time on this, so she would like to to chime in on any of it.
But we just felt like with the gap between 18 and retirees that this is something that uh the committee may want to take a look at and uh recommend providing this coverage, Molly, do you have anything to add?
[Laughter] Molly Ed, your boss called you out, so I just want to I want to give you an opportunity. Yeah, I think this is going to be beneficial especially for um any children that are aging out of the benefit that already exists in our plan um so that they don't lose that
completely. Also, any employees that we have that are approaching um the age or past the age that they would have hearing aid coverage as a retiree on our post 65 retirey plan. This would allow them to still have some benefits while an active employee. Mr. Dozer, you're
recognized. I I'll I'll stay here. I can go sit down. whatever y'all want me to do. Well, you're you're on the agenda, so Okay, good. All right. They put you on the agenda, so you're on the agenda. That's wonderful. Kind of not so much
sometimes. So, uh to to Molly and Ed's point, this was something that was evaluated. Uh the Gallagher team looked at it from u the financial monitoring aspect as well. and total cost as a percentage to the plan spend itself,
we're only talking about 0.1%. Uh or roughly $25,000 to add this benefit. So, um we do believe that it's a a good benefit to add. Um it will differentiate you from some of the other employers because some more times than not,
hearing aid benefit is not something that's added to the active employee plan. It's more of like a Medicare uh type of a thing. Um, so we think that the cost versus the benefit that those employees will get um will be beneficial. So it's a recommendation from from us to move forward with that
as well. And just to be clear, the recommendation the the universal us in this case is Sigma. Correct. Well, we're being a self assured plan. It's the county that would be doing it, but Sigma would be uh administering the plan. That's correct. Correct. Sigma is administering the plan. Uh what Ed said
is correct. Uh, and uh, this is through a partnership that Sigma has, and I hope I don't say it wrong, is Amplify shot on on the name. So, yes, it's a through a partnership with them. Um, so, excellent. Uh, Miss Stevenson,
you're recognized. Two questions. um the $25,000 estimated cost, is that what the county would pay or will the employees see an increase in their premiums under their is this covered under health coverage? Is that's what it's going to be under? So, will that change their
premiums at this point? Not to not to this point. I mean, relative to to their premium. So, um it would be a cost to the plan plan. Okay. And then my second question is the the group that it's a I can't the am what you said whatever
amplify yes is that through is that something that they is that through like a particular doctor's office or is that where would the employee go to see about those hearing aids? Sure. So the employees would still want to see
an in network provider, you know, so if they're going to an ENT, they would still want to select an in-et network provider um and let them know that they have this benefit. Um and then the actual provider has to order that from Amplifon in order to to get that
benefit. Thank you. I think and I'm going to re I want to restate because we'll need a motion, but I want to restate I think what you're saying is that uh this is a county benefit administered by Sigma that begins January 2026. Is that
correct? That is correct. Okay. Just for the record, we need a motion and a second. We have a motion. We have second. Second. Second. Any further discussion? Okay. some somebody over here on the
right side. It's going on. Right. Okay. Please. Um so I just want to poke a little bit at the math. You said $25,000. It's $2,000 annual benefit per person needing a hearing aid. Do we have that few people that we we know of that
need a hearing aid? That's that's like if they use the entire $2,000 benefit, that's like 12 people. Yeah. On 1700 members in the plan. So, I can get back to you on that one. Um, I am taking that
information from the memo. Um, I didn't put that together myself, but I can go back and scrutinize that if you'd like for me to. Well, if there's no increase to the to the to the plan costs, um.1% like you said,
$25,000. That's great. I'm just almost too good to be true. Trying to confirm that that's the the number. I understand. Yeah. Um, yes. if the committee would like for me to to go back and um I can't answer that right now. Um but if you'd like for me to go
back and specifically get that, I can absolutely. Yeah. Can because maybe my assumptions you're you know are just too black and white and maybe they they made some much more scientific assumptions than than I would ordinarily. So I'd just be curious as to how we came up
with $25,000 because like I said that doesn't doesn't ring appropriately. I can shed a little more light on that. Um, we got that 0.1% number from Sigma. That's their estimate from their book of business on a uh 12 month period for two
hearing aids for the $2,000 allowance. Well, not allowance, but the maximum benefit on that. So, that would be their estimate from the what they have been seeing on their plans. What what would be the um um the employees co-pay on that?
So, this $2,000 maximum benefit will be subject to the co insurance and deductible for our plans. Um, essentially it's going to function the same as any existing co insurance and deductible on the plan. It's going to be the same medical co insurance and deductible.
Chairman Phillips, I think you've had your hand up for about 30 minutes. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I'm just a little curious about the 12 months. uh every year. Most of the I' I've wear hearing aids and I have
for a good long while. Uh and most of them that are reputable have a warranty that covers two years. Why did we decide 12 months instead of something more than that? And I may I may pull my Sigma friends up from the uh from the audience
to help me answer that if uh we were looking at a 12 month period for that because that's going to be matching the Humanana benefit uh for the Medicare Advantage post 65 retirees starting 1126. So this would be aligning that same benefit with our post 65 retirees.
This would also allow if um if you're in a year where it's not covered by your hearing aid is not covered by a warranty and something happens, it gets dropped in water, it malfunctions. It would allow the replacement of that even off sync, off schedule sooner than a longer period
would allow for that. Molly, I'll wear hearing aids. You need to speak up. Speak up. You just say I apologize. We chose the 12month period uh because that was going to be in line with the post 65 retirey Medicare advantage plan that's going to be in
force January 1st of 2026. So essentially it'll match the benefit for our activives and our post 65 retirees on that Medicare Advantage plan. I I understand. I'm I'm just thinking that most of them are warrantied have some kind of a warranty beyond 12
months. So, uh, if that warranty goes beyond 12 months, what you just said is the warranty, uh, supersedes the cost. So, they would have to file under warranty before they did anything else. Correct. I assume that would be specific to any kind of warranty they have, and
I'm not going to be able to answer questions on that. But, if something were to happen to void the warranty or if something just went out of the warranty period, then this would still help employees replace that hearing aid even if it's not covered under warranty for whatever reason. Let me just kind of follow up one time. Why did we decide to
do this? Uh I'm I'm wondering if other employers are offering this coverage. I've really never heard of another employer offering this coverage, other governments offering this coverage. Why did we decide to do this? Well, part of the reason why is there's
a gap between if you have a a person a dependent who is 18 and they once they turn 18 then they lose that hearing aid coverage um for them. Uh and then there's a you
know your active employees don't have anything but your dependent at you know eight younger than 18 have something retirees have it with the human plan um but our activives don't and so post 65 retirees do but our activives don't and
we just felt like there was a gap there and we felt like that um you know in in investigating looking around and seeing what options there were um you know part of it is just helping out the employees. I think it's I think it's also a benefit
um if you work with somebody who uh needs the um benefit that um you know it's just something in the environment your work environment I think is very beneficial to the employee active employee. You guys are too smart. You have all the
answers and I appreciate that. Thank you. Chairman Phillips uh as a followup I think Mr. Dozer wanted to potentially recognize another Sigma um asset to come and explain further detail. Would you like would you like to do that on this
particular topic? I know. Oh, I I agree. I just don't know if you want some additional resources. Thank you. Are there any further questions? We're going to take a roll call vote on this. Did we get a I'm
back. My memory is failing me today. My apologies. We're going to take a roll call vote without objection. Thank you. Commissioner Boyd, yes. Mike Curtis, yes. Mary Hickerson, yes. Lois Miller, yes. Commissioner Phillips, yes.
Jennifer Smith, Michael Smith, Steve Spence, yes. Sonia Stevenson, yes. Eric Tito, Benny, thank you, Susan. Thank you, Mr. Doer. We are now under other business. Um, Ed, you're recognized under other business, please, sir. Yes, sir. I have two
things. Um there are some people that may have received a letter from Sigma saying that Ascension uh is um going to be out of network. That letter was sent by mistake. We are waiting for a retraction letter from
Sigma at the moment uh to be so we can email it out to everybody and and those that received the letter should be receiving a retraction letter. that letter. Will there be a stipulation for Sonia Stevenson and the HR department for emergency medical services as a
result of that letter? She Sonia called me yesterday and we're talking about the ascension letter, Sonia. So, you were like, uh oh. So, yeah. I and I apologize. I thought we would have the retraction letter by now, but they're having attorneys send it down, so I'm still waiting for it. Uh
but the good news to that um Ascension and Sigma did get uh come to terms with an agreement. I don't know the terms of it, but I do know they've reached an agreement u even before this letter went out. So uh the other thing I wanted to
mention is that Sigma and HCA now are in negotiations. Uh and so since we won't meet in June, I just wanted to make the committee aware of it. Thank you, Ed. Uh, any questions for Ed on those two items? Yes, Mary, you're recognized.
Okay, so guess who got a letter? It was addressed to the Hickerson family. Uh, so in looking at this uh after I Sonia panic and called Ed Tuesday night, um, I was looking through this actually I had
Melissa look too. Uh, as you look at St. Thomas Rolifford when it suggested three other hospitals in the area on here nowhere is Stone Crest. Why? I don't know to be honest with you. I
don't know. It just really makes me nervous that this letter did get sent out. But they're also on here did not say anything about Rutherford County's second hospital
that is a whole lot closer than 25 28 and 32 miles for St. Thomas Rutherford. I would like for somebody to tell me why Stone Crest was not on this list. Are we not really say is there a problem but
are we negotiating somewhere behind the doors might I would say one thing purely speculation is negotiated with HCA is that Mr. Smith, could you use your
microphone? Thank you. You just said they were under negotiations with HCA signal was a and and keep in mind for the those in the local plus stone would not be in that network. So there may be re that's speculation on my part that
for those on the local plus network that that would not be a option for them. Tanya, you're recognized. I may be asking a totally crazy question so I'm going to apologize first.
in future RFPs, is there a way for us, would it be practical or process to put in there that should our insurance provider be in
negotiations with another entity that that cannot negatively impact our employee population? Because I think if and I'm just doing this from recall. I think the letter said something along the line because I mean we're the
customer, right? And so because the because the organization, the business is renegotiating something. I don't know why that should impact a customer that we already have an agreement with is my question of sorts because in the letter I think it said,
you know, if you choose to go to St. Thomas, just know that that's going to be an out of network provider. And that was kind of along the same lines when we um did MMC. So, I didn't know if that's something you could put in an RFP. I may be crazy, but um
thinking outside the box, I think we have a gentleman in the back. Um come up. Hold on a second. Mr. Foster, you're going to have to if you're going to be recognized. Is there's no objection? Uh, Mr. Foster, I assume you're with Sigma. Yes, sir. Okay. If
there no objection, Mr. Foster, come up and introduce yourself and explain to us how you can add to this conversation. Everyone Foster consultant with Sigma. I work with back on your all your uh wellness
programming throughout the year. Um, quick note on that. I would add to it that there we do have continuity of of care um possibilities right so if you are working with say an oncologist that's about to go out of network we can always submit a form for that specific individual to be able to continue care
with that uh provider for a certain period of time to allow them to have the time to find another oncologist for example especially that that would especially apply in like rural areas for example but if there is someone who has a surgery scheduled for um say at at a
given hospital in the area that we're potentially in negotiations with for trying to keep them in network, that same concept would apply, the continuity of care. If they have a a surgery that's scheduled for three weeks after, then uh we can try to put that continuity of
care um process into place for that individual or those individuals. So if I understand what you're saying, it there's a possibility that you can maintain care with that same organization only for current ongoing issues. But if it's a new issue, then
you have to take it to another facility. Yes. But it's also there's also a window of time that goes with it. I'm not sure what that window is. I want to say it's between like 30 and maybe 60 days. So it's like it's it would give them enough time to find a new provider, but it's not going to be for, you know, several months. That's good to know because some
of the people that call me and they and they didn't call me, they just called me because I was on the insurance committee and they knew we had insurance asking questions and of course I didn't have any answers because I didn't really know. Um that was some of their concerns because some of the individuals that reached out to me,
their cardiologist was was with St. Thomas, their um pulmonary was with St. Thomas. And so that was where some of the concern came. Not necessarily the hospital as much as it was the the providers that they had. Got it.
Any other questions for Mr. Foster while he's here? Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. Foster. Any other questions? Any other business? Seeing none, if there's no objection, we are journed. Thank you.