To enact section 124.826 of the Revised Code to allow a political subdivision to participate in the same state health plan offered to state employees.
HB 746 would create a new section of the Revised Code allowing a political subdivision — such as a county, township, municipal corporation, or other local government body — to opt into the same health, medical, hospital, dental, surgical, and vision benefits that are available to certain state employees. The bill gives the political subdivision the choice to participate or stop participating, and it allows employees of participating subdivisions to enroll, disenroll, or re-enroll through forms developed by the Department of Administrative Services.
The bill also directs the Department of Administrative Services, in consultation with the Department of Budget and Management, to establish procedures, forms, and rules for administering the program. Participating local governments would be required to coordinate with the state on enrollment and provide employee information needed to administer coverage. The bill specifies that participating employees would receive the same cost-sharing arrangements, coverage options, contribution rates, and enrollment periods as comparable state employees, and it allows the state to determine how premiums and related costs are paid, including prorating costs for part-time employees.
HB 746 would expand access to the state employee health plan framework to eligible local governments and their employees, while leaving participation voluntary for each political subdivision. It would add a new statutory section, R.C. 124.826, and would require the Department of Administrative Services to adopt rules and administer the program, including setting contribution and cost-sharing details and handling claims and benefits administration. The bill would not require any political subdivision to offer this coverage, and it would not prevent local governments from maintaining or offering other health benefit plans.
Because the bill is only at the introduced stage and there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes, there is no formal legislative record of support or opposition in the materials provided. The bill’s structure suggests a generally practical, administrative purpose: giving local governments another option for employee health coverage by leveraging the state plan. The absence of debate or voting history means sentiment cannot be measured directly from the available record.
The main potential points of contention are likely to involve cost, administrative complexity, and the effect on existing local benefit arrangements. Questions may arise about how premiums and employer contributions would be set, whether participation could shift costs to the state plan or participating subdivisions, and how claims administration would be coordinated. Another possible issue is whether local governments should be allowed to join a state plan designed for state employees, especially if some subdivisions already offer comparable coverage through other carriers or self-insured arrangements.