1 2 3 4 5 6 7 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 8 Workshop 9 Tuesday, July 10, 2012 10 10:00 a.m. 11 Commissioners' Courtroom 12 Kerr County Courthouse 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS 18 19 20 21 22 23 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 GUY R. OVERBY, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X July 10, 2012 2 PAGE 3 --- Review and discuss FY 2012-13 employee insurance programs, including group 4 employee health benefits and voluntary supplemental insurance programs 3 5 --- Adjourned 29 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Tuesday, July 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., a workshop 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 Let me call to order this Kerr County Commissioners Court 9 workshop posted and scheduled for this date and time, 10 Tuesday, July 10, 2012, at 10 a.m. It is that time now. The 11 agenda item for the workshop is to review and discuss fiscal 12 year 2012-13 employee insurance programs, including the group 13 employee health benefits and voluntary supplemental insurance 14 programs. Ms. Lantz, you have been working with TAC with 15 regard to their proposal, and it was kind of a -- based on 16 the copies of things that I've seen, kind of off-again, 17 on-again. Initially they mentioned to us there was a -- 18 based upon the same contract provisions, there'd be a 1.6 19 percent increase, and then, "Oops, we spoke too soon. I'm 20 not authorized to release that number, but hopefully it will 21 be that or close to it, depending upon review of claims." 22 And then finally they come back with a -- a final figure of 23 the 1.6. 24 MS. LANTZ: Yes, sir. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And that occurred, I guess, last 7-10-12 wk 4 1 week sometime. 2 MS. LANTZ: With that being said, we're going to 3 see about a $29,000 increase in our medical premiums for the 4 total fiscal year. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Total dollar cost based upon that 6 1.6? 7 MS. LANTZ: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the identical plan, 10 no plan changes? 11 MS. LANTZ: No plan changes. I did ask for 12 information as far as changing our deductible and our 13 coinsurance. If we do decide to do that, we can see an 14 increase up to 3.5 percent along with the 1.6 percent 15 increase, which would really -- for right now, being new in 16 the pool, it would not be lucrative to do that until we have 17 another year within the pool so they can get more data as far 18 as our factoring and -- and risk. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Once we determined what the -- what 20 their proposal was and contacted Mr. Looney, who of course is 21 still under contract to us through September 30, and advised 22 him of that, he indicated he was going to get in contact with 23 Mr. Norwood, the head honcho there, and see what he could 24 work through as to maybe reduce that cost for getting 25 increased benefits or reduce deductible. Or I also mentioned 7-10-12 wk 5 1 to him that we had asked for a proposal on dental, which we 2 were given an estimated cost of, I believe, 63,000? 3 MS. LANTZ: Yes. We were given an estimate of 4 $20.80 per employee to cover them, which would be around 5 64,000. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: 64,000? 7 MS. LANTZ: A year. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That was the estimate; we 9 don't have a firm number on that. 10 MS. LANTZ: Yes. And right now, they have all of 11 our data again. They needed a two-year claim history in 12 order to do a comparison, and they quoted on the high end, 13 because there again, we'd be in the pool system through Blue 14 Cross and Blue Shield, so they take the overall pool amount 15 to see what your rate would be. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, I mentioned to him that 17 we were looking at that, and the figure I recall giving him 18 was 63, since it's an estimate anyway, with the thought in 19 mind that having this information, when he holds his 20 discussions and negotiations with the folks at TAC, that -- 21 that he may be able to negotiate something on that too. I 22 don't know, but at least he can come back to us with what 23 he's been able to do. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge, when do you expect 25 that to happen, Mr. Looney to come back with his findings? 7-10-12 wk 6 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I would hope within -- I know 2 there's a meeting set up -- Dawn's got a meeting set up with 3 him for next Monday. 4 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That may be the time. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And I'm not sure if he'll have 6 anything definite then. If not, hopefully he'll be able to 7 give us an idea of when he can come with something based upon 8 a firm recommendation, based upon these things that we've got 9 in play. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The good news is, we're -- if we sit 12 tight where we are, we're -- we're looking pretty good at 13 1.6. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Give me an example of what 15 Mr. Looney's question would be. What would be his question 16 to TAC? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you know, there are a lot of 18 nuances in that insurance game, and how they might make some 19 slight adjustment in some particular coverage or the 20 deductible, and there's all sorts of -- of little wrinkles in 21 that stuff that they can -- they can work with. And, you 22 know, there's not a standard cookie cutter. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Contrary to what you might believe, 25 that since we're dealing with TAC, that it's, "Here it is," 7-10-12 wk 7 1 it's take it or leave it, and no adjustments with regard to 2 anything. In fact, I think Mr. Norwood, when he was here 3 last year, indicated that that's part of the game. They make 4 a proposal, and then they sit down and they -- they work 5 their way through and they -- they negotiate some things. 6 Insofar as the specifics, you know, until he looks at all the 7 particulars, I'm not sure exactly what -- what he'll want to 8 talk about in the way of negotiations. But that's his game, 9 so -- that's why he's under contract, is to try -- 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- my recollection 11 of Mr. Norwood's comments was that -- I don't know how many 12 counties they have; 160, whatever it is. They have 160 13 different plans. Every county basically has a different 14 plan. And I think -- and that meeting we had with TAC is 15 that the negotiation isn't -- like, the same plan is going to 16 be $29,000. That's -- that's not a negotiable number, but I 17 guess there are plan design changes that can -- that can 18 change that, that would change that number. And that's what 19 I would presume Mr. Looney is looking at. Now, we could ask 20 TAC the same question, you know, if there's anything they can 21 do that, you know -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's what Mr. Looney's going 23 to do. That's why he's on the payroll through September. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: It may be that he can get additional 7-10-12 wk 8 1 coverages for that same amount. It may be that by -- by 2 making minor modifications, he can get the deductible 3 decreased, but keep the amount for the county the same. You 4 know, there's all sorts of different wrinkles that they can 5 look at. It's a pretty complicated -- pretty complicated -- 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm sure it is. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: -- situation. And these -- 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, my big concern is, 9 you know, what is our time frame? When do we need to know 10 everything, like -- so it coincides with the budget? Like, 11 sometime in September? We -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: There's one other issue that -- that 13 we're probably going to want to look at, and that's maybe to 14 quote this thing on the basis of -- right now, our contract 15 expires in December. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: The possibility of giving us a quote 18 beginning October 1 until -- through next September 30 to 19 coincide with our budget year. That does a couple of things. 20 Number one, it -- it lets us know specifically what our cost 21 is during a particular budget year. We got that cost nailed 22 down on a fully insured plan. The second thing it does is 23 that, because our claims information cutoff is then sooner, 24 the problem that they have now quoting us is that they're 25 quoting beginning in January, and they have very sparse 7-10-12 wk 9 1 claims information upon which to base their quote. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: If we change the contract year to 4 our budget year, they will be able to quote us earlier, I 5 suspect, at least this early, if not earlier, because it'll 6 coincide with our budget year. 7 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Especially after one more 8 year of -- of running with them. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, that's another issue 10 that -- 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Didn't we just change the 12 January -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, no. No, we've been on 14 January 1 for a long time. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We were talking about 16 changing to the -- to October 1. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, obviously, we already -- we've 18 already got plugged in our cost for three months from our 19 current contract. There has to be some way to interpolate 20 that adjustment into a nine-month contract. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Have you ever visited with TAC 22 about changing the policy date? 23 MS. LANTZ: No, I haven't. I was waiting to make 24 sure I got the numbers, and then the Auditor and I did talk, 25 and then I got a call from Gary to meet with him to look at 7-10-12 wk 10 1 that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And I think that's good. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: It's good to explore, anyway. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's good to do it if 5 it's financially -- 6 MS. LANTZ: And during the process last year, Kelly 7 did say that was an option we could do. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9 MS. LANTZ: And most counties do that on their -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It makes more sense. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's just -- and since we're -- 12 I mean, if we're going to -- and we've kind of made an 13 informal commitment to TAC for a couple of years. One of the 14 problems with changing before was that we were changing our 15 insurance every year; you couldn't do it. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we're going to make a 18 commitment for a longer period of time, now's the time to 19 make that adjustment. 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Makes sense. 21 MS. LANTZ: And according to that -- I think Jody 22 gave everyone a copy of the contract that was sent out from 23 TAC, and we just have to have that in by October 17th. So, 24 as long as we make those changes before then, I think that 25 gives you enough time, before October 1st. 7-10-12 wk 11 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would suggest we explore 2 doing that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. That's one of the things 4 that's in play, obviously, yeah. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I'm kind of with 6 Commissioner Baldwin in that, you know, I don't want to get 7 into the situation we got in last year when we were trying to 8 do a lot of budget adjustments and changes in September. I 9 really want to get this thing nailed down as quick as we can, 10 because as soon as we get -- I mean, historically, we get 11 the -- get the insurance nailed down, and then you look at 12 other benefits, whether it be salary or all that other stuff, 13 and new employees all that kind of stuff has to follow after 14 that number. And maybe still have a few adjustments in the 15 budget, you know, by department still. So I think we really 16 need to try and nail down the date when we're going to have a 17 final insurance number. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can get a better handle 19 on that come next Monday when we -- when we meet with 20 Mr. Looney. I think we'll be able to -- be able to give us 21 an idea then, and hopefully we can -- we can put a target on 22 that. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would there be any issue 24 with -- with the insurance company, or with TAC, I guess, if 25 we -- like, if we decided today or two weeks from now that we 7-10-12 wk 12 1 want to change our date to October 1? Is there -- is there a 2 problem -- is there going to be a problem with them getting 3 that done this October 1? 4 MS. LANTZ: I don't believe. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't think so, no. 6 MS. LANTZ: 'Cause we already have our renewal in. 7 It's just, you know -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it would be easier for them, 9 very frankly. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, that's the way I see 11 it, too. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I think it would be easier for them, 13 because the claims information they're looking at is -- and, 14 of course, they're -- they're already under contract under 15 our current contract through December 31. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: So I don't -- I don't see that as a 18 problem at all. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- essentially, what they 20 would do, I guess, is do a nine-month contract. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do an extension for nine 22 months, get it on cycle. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, either that or do a -- 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or a 21-month. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, just cancel out the last three 7-10-12 wk 13 1 months of this current contract and do a 12-month contract. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, okay. 3 MS. LANTZ: Yeah. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: 'Cause they're already on this other 5 one. What you would want to protect against is, you've 6 already got the last three months of this calendar year under 7 one rate, and you don't want that -- any percentage increase 8 to apply to those last three months. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: That's going to have to be 11 interpolated into the new contract. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. That wouldn't be 13 hard. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Just a matter of crunching numbers, 15 sure. Okay, any more on the health benefits? 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I expect not. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody out here? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we'll know more next week. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So you meet Tuesday with the 20 guru? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Monday. 22 MS. LANTZ: Monday. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Monday. And when are we 24 going to know? When is this body up here going to know what 25 you met about? 7-10-12 wk 14 1 MS. LANTZ: Hopefully by Tuesday. You know, I 2 can -- 3 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: After that meeting. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we meeting again? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: No. We'll give you an e-mail as to 6 when he estimates he can have the final -- have his final 7 negotiations done with TAC, I would think. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. Yes, dear? 9 MS. GRINSTEAD: Well, tentatively you have another 10 budget workshop set for next Tuesday. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 12 MS. GRINSTEAD: It's tentative, but -- 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 MS. GRINSTEAD: -- something to think about. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, when do you pull the 16 trigger on that? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: We can add that, okay. 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Is that scheduled for 10:00, 19 tentative? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Okay. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The ones on Tuesday are at 10:00 23 because I have mental health at 8:30 or 9:00. 24 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Okay. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. I guess the other items we 7-10-12 wk 15 1 got are the voluntary supplemental insurance programs. You 2 were here yesterday and heard the discussion relative to 3 that. 4 MS. LANTZ: Mm-hmm. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Thoughts? 6 MS. LANTZ: Currently our rates will renew with 7 Alamo at the same rate. We're not going to have any 8 increases, so that's the latest e-mail I received from Gary. 9 I spoke with TAC about their ancillary benefits, and they're 10 supposed to be getting us some rate quotes as well. However, 11 the only concern I have is if we split this the way we were 12 talking about splitting it, our rates may increase on both 13 ends, because we don't have a solid number of people within 14 the pool for the rates. So, that's just something to bring 15 to the Court's attention. We already are locked in with 16 Alamo, so their rates hopefully won't go up, as long as we 17 renew with them. However, TAC did advise me that if we do 18 split our pool of employees between two different companies, 19 that that can affect -- 20 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: The rate. 21 MS. LANTZ: -- the rates of what ancillary products 22 we're going to take. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The choice could cost. 24 MS. LANTZ: Exactly. The employee is what it 25 costs. 7-10-12 wk 16 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Why do we have two 2 companies, and why not three? And why not five? Why not 3 one? I mean, what is the reason -- how did we land with just 4 two? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We landed with just one. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: One. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that was never decided by 8 the Court, really. Indirectly it was. In fact, it was -- 9 MS. LANTZ: Just rolled over every year. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Listen to him. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't. It was clear 12 that -- I mean, I was very much against it, using Alamo for 13 that. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And so -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just happened. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I guess I need to go 17 ahead with my line of questioning, then, 'cause now I need to 18 know. So, we have a contract with Alamo? 19 MS. LANTZ: For the remainder of the year till 20 January. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: January 1. 22 MS. LANTZ: 1st, mm-hmm. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, would that be something 24 that changes to October 1 as well? 25 MS. LANTZ: That would be another question I need 7-10-12 wk 17 1 to ask Mr. Looney. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then what happens -- and 3 then we have -- and then we have something with TAC as well, 4 the same kind of deal? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: No. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We just -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Not yet. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- just have one with Alamo. 9 MS. LANTZ: Currently, we just have the one. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: One. And then do we have 11 intentions of -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: If you'll recall the discussion on 13 the last agenda item yesterday, -- 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. There was a proposal that the 16 employees have the option to voluntarily subscribe to the 17 Alamo products or subscribe to the TAC products, or both. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Now, there was no formal action 20 taken, because the agenda item was limited to the consultant 21 RFQ -- the RFQ on the consultant. But I think what Ms. Lantz 22 is mentioning, if -- if the pool of employees is reduced with 23 either of those providers because of additional options, 24 there's a risk that the rate may go up because of the number 25 of subscribers going down -- going down. They're working off 7-10-12 wk 18 1 of the gross numbers. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why don't we put it out for 3 bid for the -- you know, whoever wants to jump in the game? 4 To be the one that -- let them bid for it, give us the best 5 deal, and pick one and go with them? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: The problem is, these are all -- 7 these are all paid by employees. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know, but if we could 9 negotiate the best rate with the best plans, and, you know, 10 all employees would be in the same pool, basically, and 11 purchase that product or those products at the best price -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's kind of where I was 13 heading with my question, because, you know, I see one 14 company, and then possibly two companies, and why not have 15 five thrown in there, and let's pick the one that serves our 16 needs the best? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I can answer part of 18 it. I mean, the County Attorney and I have gone round and 19 round on this issue. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Who won? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a tie at the moment. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Still a toss-up. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He's a pain in the butt, 24 isn't he? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that tells us, doesn't it? 7-10-12 wk 19 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the things that I think 3 is that the -- if the county -- my feeling is very strong; 4 the County should spend absolutely no money on any ancillary 5 products. In the past, we have spent some -- spent 6 administrative funds for that, but going forward, we're not, 7 I believe, no matter who we go with. Once we get into the -- 8 this Court gets into picking companies for the employees to 9 use, then we're kind of giving a stamp of approval to that 10 company. We're kind of saying, "Hey, we've researched them," 11 and I don't know -- this is where we agree -- I don't know 12 that we want to be in the position of telling -- of 13 recommending AFLAC versus Alamo versus TAC versus anybody. I 14 mean, it's really not our position. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm there. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's the reason not to do 17 it. The reason to do it is that, you know, it's a 18 convenience to our employees, and as long as they clearly 19 understand that we're not recommending this company over 20 another company, they're certainly free to go out to the 21 marketplace and get their own, whoever they want. We've kind 22 of settled on TAC a little bit, because we're doing our 23 insurance with TAC, and if TAC offers it, it is kind of -- 24 makes a little bit of flow-through sense, but not much, in my 25 mind. So, it's kind of -- it depends on what we're wanting 7-10-12 wk 20 1 to do as a Court. It's a convenience to the employees, and 2 how involved we want to get into it is what -- where we 3 really are right now. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, all we're trying to do, 5 in my estimation, is we're trying to find the best deal that 6 provides the best coverage at the least amount of cost. 7 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That's right. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, you know, we're not 10 going to recommend it, but that's just the fact that 11 whichever one pans out, the reason you're going to get those 12 is because of the number of employees. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: That's exactly right. And not only 14 that; you -- if the employee individually goes to a carrier 15 and wants to negotiate some of the same coverage, they're 16 going to get hit with preexisting conditions, with physicals, 17 with health questions. In an open enrollment, if you do it 18 as part of the supplemental program through the employer 19 payroll deduction plan, generally if the group is big enough, 20 you can eliminate all that out of it, so you're providing a 21 service to your employees to give them coverage that they 22 wouldn't otherwise be able to get, and in addition, the rate 23 is better. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The rate's going to be 25 better, and, you know, that's the way it works. I mean, it's 7-10-12 wk 21 1 just -- you start splitting up the group, the rates are going 2 to go up. That's just the way it is. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if we open it up, then we 4 open it up, and AFLAC can bid, and every -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Everybody can bid. I don't 6 care who bids. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then you figure out as to, 8 okay, with the -- this is where we -- we've talked about this 9 on the committee. If you open it up, well, what are we 10 putting out for RFQ? We've got to compare apples to apples. 11 Well, AFLAC may do, you know, a cancer policy this way, and 12 Continental or whatever they're called may do one this way, 13 and Alamo may have one a little different. TAC may have one 14 a little bit different, or not at all, so how do you start 15 truly comparing one policy to another so you -- 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you my real 17 question. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Uh-huh. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How did Alamo get it? Why 21 is Alamo the only one? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They just got it. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. It just happened. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It did. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me see if I can provide a little 7-10-12 wk 22 1 background. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Here comes the careful 3 explanation. (Laughter.) 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Looney vetted I don't know how 5 many companies in each instance, but a number of different 6 companies in each product category; short-term disability, 7 long-term disability, accidental, major illness. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A lot of work. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, and he vetted those. And some 10 of them would -- would do an open enrollment with no 11 preexisting conditions. Some of them wouldn't, so they got 12 pitched out. And on each category, he put together a roster. 13 The -- insofar as Court approval, I've got to assume at least 14 impliedly we approved it, because it became part of the 15 enrollment, even though maybe it didn't, 'cause it's all 16 voluntary. We obviously appropriated the money for the 17 administrative costs that went with it. Or we've done a 18 major faux pas. But the other difficulty that you run into 19 is -- and I think we had some of this going on at one point 20 in time a number of years ago, where the employee could make 21 a deal, you know, go down to a local agent and say, "I want 22 coverage," and ask for a payroll deduction, and it was 23 literally an accounting nightmare for the Treasurer, the 24 Auditor, and all those people that have to work those numbers 25 and account and balance all those things. And there's some 7-10-12 wk 23 1 risk if you -- for example, not only do you have to have the 2 coverage on this major illness policy the same so that 3 they're truly apples to apples insofar as evaluating 4 proposals on it. If you have all sorts of different 5 underwriters, agents, agents/brokers, whatever, this one 6 providing the term life, this one providing the short-term 7 disability, this one providing accidental death, we're back 8 into the accounting nightmare. And I think it's for that 9 reason that we settled on one, quote, package, as it were, 10 that had been vetted by the -- by Mr. Looney. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Essentially, we -- we somehow 12 ended up with Mr. Looney as our broker. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Well, you got to have a 14 broker. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You got to have a broker, so 16 Mr. Looney did it, 'cause he gets a commission on each one of 17 these -- a pretty substantial commission -- 18 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: On each one. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- for these policies. Now, 20 what -- to me, what we -- if we're going to go that route, 21 you know, I don't know how you go out in the marketplace and 22 really just -- unless we just pick AFLAC or Continental or 23 someone like that. Even then, you're kind of in the same 24 boat; don't know if you're getting the best deal for the 25 employees. Or do you go out and do an RFQ for a broker, and 7-10-12 wk 24 1 just tell the broker to go get the best deal? And I don't 2 know how you check if we're getting the best deal there, 3 either. Therefore, my option is do nothing. Let it -- if 4 TAC offers it, they can get it with TAC. And other than 5 that, they can go out in the free marketplace and get their 6 package. That's not been a popular option, but that's what I 7 think is the best. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Have you had any dissatisfaction 9 expressed to you about the current -- 10 MS. LANTZ: Yes. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I know we had a problem with the 12 vision. 13 MS. LANTZ: And we have a problem with the dental. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Problem with the dental? 15 MS. LANTZ: Because the main thing is, when you 16 have these agents or brokers, whomever, they do not know our 17 area here. They don't look to see if the doctors here are on 18 our plan that they choose for us. Sometimes cheaper is not 19 always better, so you may have to pay a couple extra dollars 20 to go to your same provider here; dental, vision, whatever, 21 so that's been the only negative so far I've had with 22 ancillary products. And right now, there's maybe one or two 23 dental offices here that take Dental Select, so personally, I 24 would not recommend them again for county employees, because 25 they're paying the money for those services. And, you know, 7-10-12 wk 25 1 if -- 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You got the vision -- we got the 3 vision solved. 4 MS. LANTZ: Vision is solved. We went back to the 5 Avesis midyear to get that rectified so everybody could go do 6 their appointments. But the way I look at it, as far as 7 products go, the most important are your medical, your 8 dental, and your vision. Dental ties to your health. If you 9 don't take care of your teeth, heart attack -- I mean, all 10 that is -- that's involved together. The other ancillary 11 products are employees' choices, but I'm a firm believer in 12 those three things. If you can't see, you can't work. I 13 mean, it's just -- 14 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Can't eat -- 15 MS. LANTZ: Can't eat, can't go. I mean, it's just 16 certain -- and that's probably because I've been in the 17 medical background. Those are -- I see a lot of illnesses 18 with especially dental that can tie to higher premiums. So, 19 that's just my personal opinion, so I'm going to probably 20 fight for those a little bit more than the others. You know, 21 everybody can get life insurance; everybody can get 22 disability. You know, the cancer policy's elective as well, 23 and everybody can get that wherever. But as far as employees 24 go, they're used to getting those products, and they're 25 secure with those products, so I don't think we should just 7-10-12 wk 26 1 cut those off. You know, they have the option to choose, but 2 wherever you choose, I want to make sure that it's what 3 they're accustomed to getting. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: And on all the other products, no 5 dissatisfaction? 6 MS. LANTZ: Well, you really don't use them, 7 because they're more of a -- you know, if you're disabled, 8 you get short-term, but hopefully we haven't had any of that. 9 And, you know, we have workers comp, so a lot of that 10 overrides a lot of stuff. And, you know, your voluntary 11 life, we haven't, so -- 12 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: We're good. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We didn't die. That's when use 14 that one. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's pretty easy to determine 16 liability on a policy, isn't it? 17 MS. LANTZ: We have the accident policy, and since 18 I've been in H.R. -- you know, the paperwork comes through 19 us -- I haven't seen that many. But I think it's more of a 20 comfort for the employees to know they have that. If they 21 don't -- if they're not able to go to work, if they don't 22 have sick time, if they don't have -- it's some type of 23 income that they get. Even though it's $100, $200, it's the 24 fact of knowing that they can access that benefit. 25 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Good. 7-10-12 wk 27 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, did that answer all your 2 questions? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, yeah. Yeah, I'm happy. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Just loaded with information now. 5 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm thrilled to death now. 6 MS. LANTZ: Any other questions? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, going back to what we 8 talked about yesterday, you know, I don't -- I still don't 9 have a problem with letting TAC and Alamo continue, 'cause 10 Alamo -- even though I'm not really happy with how that 11 choice was made, but, you know, if TAC's rates are higher, 12 then people will use Alamo. 13 MS. LANTZ: And that's understandable. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. That's -- as long as -- 15 my biggest thing is, as long as the County is not paying one 16 penny towards these programs. And I think, going forward, 17 we're not. In the past, we have. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm reminded of what Commissioner 19 Baldwin may say; you know, if I were going to ask a question, 20 and of course I'm not, -- 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if I were... 22 JUDGE TINLEY: -- but if I were, I would ask 23 Commissioner Letz if he has any Alamo coverage. But I'm not 24 going to ask that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you have any Alamo 7-10-12 wk 28 1 coverage? 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I don't have any ancillary 3 coverage -- well, actually, I have vision -- yeah, I do. I 4 have vision and dental. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I do, actually. I lied; I do 7 have it. I didn't even think -- see, I don't use any of it 8 because I can't use the providers. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I can't use the providers. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, now the truth comes out. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I would be just as happy if 13 I didn't. I didn't have it until this year, and I haven't 14 ever used it, so I don't think I'm going to continue it. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It doesn't just kind of roll 16 over and get -- the coverage gets greater; you have more to 17 spend? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, vision does. And I think 19 -- does dental? 20 MS. LANTZ: Dental does, but it doesn't do any good 21 when you don't have a provider. 22 MS. PIEPER: There's one in Comfort, one in 23 Fredericksburg. 24 MS. LANTZ: Well, I'm just saying a lot of people 25 go to the same doctors. They don't want to change, and so -- 7-10-12 wk 29 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Do they have any -- do they have any 2 coverage in Comfort? 3 MS. LANTZ: Yes, one of the doctors in Comfort 4 takes it. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There's your answer. Go to 6 Comfort. 7 MS. PIEPER: Linda's dentist takes that. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Mine does. 9 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Mine does. 10 MS. HARGIS: Mine doesn't. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Have we got anything else 12 we're going to throw out here with regard to the employee 13 health care benefits and the voluntary programs? Going once, 14 twice. We're adjourned. 15 (Workshop was adjourned at 10:37 a.m.) 16 - - - - - - - - - - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7-10-12 wk 30 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 13th day of July, 2012. 8 9 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 10 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 11 Certified Shorthand Reporter 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7-10-12 wk