Council OKs insurance broker switch
In a tight vote Tuesday,
A county administration committee had independently screened, ranked and interviewed all four interested companies and unanimously recommended
Pittston-based
Six council members voted to accept the committee’s recommendation of USI:
The five voting no:
During discussion, Schnee asked why the committee did not recommend the lowest price option.
County Operational Services Division Head Edmund O’Neill, who was among the employees on the screening committee, told council he personally felt comfortable that USI adequately addressed all the committee’s concerns. A plus for USI was its size and volume of business with Travelers, which is a major provider of county insurance, O’Neill said. That working relationship may yield lower rates that more than offset its higher brokerage fee, he said.
USI is ranked as one of the largest brokers in the nation, the administration said.
Haas said he appreciates the committee’s work and believes selecting the lowest-price broker will “hurt us in the long-run.”
Perry said the county’s insurance premiums have increased
The county terminated former agency director
In response, the county retained
McGinley, the council chairman, said he supported keeping the Joyce firm because it submitted the lowest price and is a county-based business with employees who reside locally.
Vough said he prefers the guaranteed savings on the brokerage fee.
The two other proposals submitted this year were
Vaccine mandate
A council majority also tabled Haas’ resolution banning a county employee/job applicant COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Crocamo has repeatedly said she is not actively pursuing an employee vaccine mandate. She told council Tuesday the county as a whole would be in “serious trouble healthwise” if coronavirus cases and hospitalizations reached a level forcing her to consider such a mandate.
McClosky Houck said she does not believe council has authority to direct the manager and stressed county government is not subject to the federal vaccine mandate.
Haas said he is not trying to be divisive but believes council must “take a stand” due to the “federal overreach.”
But Radle said Haas’ proposal is “meant to be divisive” because Crocamo is not planning a mandate.
Perry concurred, saying council faces many pressing issues and should not unnecessarily have “federal politics coming down to Luzerne County.” On a personal note, Perry said he chose full vaccination after recovering from severe COVID-19 illness, although he does not believe in vaccination mandates.
Griffith said he has been vaccinated but believes a county mandate would make the county liable if an employee develops health problems attributed to the vaccine.
Saidman questioned who is liable if unvaccinated people spread the virus, causing someone else to die.
Urban said a county mandate would be a “huge liability.”
Seven council members voted to table: Schnee, Urban, Vough, McDermott, Perry, Radle and Saidman.
McClosky Houck and McGinley opposed the tabling because they wanted to vote against Haas’ proposal. McGinley said he agrees with McClosky Houck that such a decision “clearly” falls under the manager’s authority under the county’s home rule structure.
Haas and Griffith also opposed tabling.
Physical Therapists, Acupuncturists Charged In Over $20M Health Care Fraud
AMA Publishes New Study Monitoring Competition In U.S. Health Insurance
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News