County Ironing Out Coverage For Dependents Of Deceased Employees

Tuscaloosa AL

12 November, 2020

9:26 AM

Description

TUSCALOOSA, AL. — Debate continued Wednesday regarding proposed changes to health insurance coverage for dependents of deceased Tuscaloosa County employees, which could see county commissioners take action in December to implement the enhancements by the first of next year. County Administrator Melvin Vines has been tasked with developing the new Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama policy for the county and provided the latest tweaks to the Tuscaloosa County Commission during its regular meeting Wednesday morning. Chief among the changes will be a 60-day grace period offered to dependents of the deceased employee, which will allow them to retain coverage for roughly two months following the death of the policy holder. As it currently stands, dependents of Tuscaloosa County employees lose their coverage upon the death of the policy holder and subsequent termination of the policy. Vines' expressed goal, if the measure clears the Commission, would be to have the changes go into effect Jan. 1, 2021. Vines first presented the new policy changes to commissioners in October and explained the proposed rate for the dependent of the deceased employee will be $750 a month for a single contract and $1,500 a month for a family contract. In taking the approach, Patch previously reported that it would offer the same level of coverage at no cost to the county, because the costs would be covered in full by the policy holder. For example, a family plan under the county's policy currently carries a monthly premium of $100 for the employee, while the county picks up the additionally $1,400. "We do this, at least [dependents] have 60 days and we're at least giving them an option," said District 1 Commissioner Stan Acker. "This is in no way negative to the employees. It's more than they have now." Acker made a motion to approve the changes on Wednesday for the sake of expediency in the event someone could benefit from the grace period, all with the understanding that enhancements could be implemented as the county moves forward. However, the measure was tabled until the next Commission meeting on Dec. 2 after District 4 Commissioner Reginald Murray expressed his desire to take more time to look at how the county can offset the high cost for dependents who choose to retain their coverage. "I just feel like when you lose an income source and you're being asked to pay additional money that income source was providing by being a county employee, so we really need to look into this more in-depth and get some more in-depth information before we make this change," he said. "This will be a huge impact to spouses who have lost loved ones, so I would like us to just spend a little more time working out the approach." Acker pointed to the time already spent discussing the changes and reiterated his point in making the changes effective immediately for people in the event that something happens now or in the weeks ahead. "We can always come back and make refinements and say if we can figure out a way to make it less expensive," he said. "I think the idea of paying the full coverage was that the taxpayers wouldn't be burdened with incurring the cost, so this would be a cost-neutral option. Right now, they don't have any opportunity to stay on the plan. So at least, and I realize it's costing more, but it really should cost more, there's no way we can keep them on at the subsidized rate because they don't have a nexus to employment." District 2 Commissioner Jerry Tingle said the Commission lacks the appropriate level of intimate knowledge with respect to what individual employees are going through, which could be a point of focus tailoring the county's offerings moving forward. "We're looking at it one way, but we need to look at it as the employee looks at it," he said. Murray agreed, highlighting the need for the county to research the earning capabilities for those who could be impacted or if the employee was retired from the county and not an active employee. "We have some employees that are not on a salary level of a judge or department head, so they would have to pay $1,500 for the family and I know they don't have the option now," he said. "We need to look at what kind of effect it would have on them." Acker, who made a motion to table the measure after initially bringing it up for a vote, expressed a willingness to go over the range of scenarios over the next three weeks and said his primary goal remains providing assurance to county employees and retirees that there is an option for their loved ones to retain coverage. "That may be that we need to do some work in educating employees so they can take option life insurance out that would cover this added cost and in the 60-day time period they could be getting that insurance money taken care of so they could pay the higher rate," he said. "To me, it's an enhanced benefit." Follow Patch here for updates or on Facebook and Twitter.