4.5. SR 07-25-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Based on quotes we have received, this option will likely not benefit family coverage employees. . Employees could find their own coverage - The Committee agreed that this was not a workable solution since not all employees with family coverage would qualify for insurance elsewhere and also because it would drastically increase the premiums paid by the City and the remainder of the employees with family coverage under the City's contract. . The City would reimburse employees if proof of coverage is provided - This would benefit employees who are covered under the City's plan in addition to another plan. It would also benefit employees who are able to get family coverage elsewhere. This also would allow employees to submit proof of payment for coverage and receive reimbursement for that if the employee had not spent his/her City provided insurance dollars. This option may cause problems with the City's group contract as most group contracts require that at least 75 percent of the eligible employees are covered under the contract. . Increase the City's insurance contribution - The City currently contributes up to $280.00 for health, dental, and life insurance. The cap has increased approximately $15.00 each year in the last several years. This increase has not come close to covering the increase in insurance premiums. Based on the current 17 employees electing family coverage, each $10.00 increase in the insurance cap costs $2,040.00 per year. . Time the increase in the City's insurance contribution to coincide with the premium increase - Each January, the insurance contribution has increased. However, the insurance contract is renewed on August 1. If the increase in the City's contribution was timed such that it offset the increase in the premium, employees would be more likely to see the benefit of this additional City contribution. . Set a percentage of the premium to be paid by the City Council - It was agreed that this option would be too expensive for the City and that it would be too hard to budget for premium increases. . Co-pays and deductibles for employees on single coverage would be reimbursed by the City up to a maximum of the annual difference between the cap and the amount paid for single coverage - It was agreed that this would be too labor intensive and difficult to administer. . Apply unused single insurance cap dollars to family coverage - There are 39 employees currently on single coverage. The cost for the City to supply insurance to those employees is $36.19 less than the $280.00 cap. This would mean that an additional $16,936.92 would be available for the employees with family coverage. This . .