Transcript Highlights:

• So, in fact, we are actuarially sound, even a little bit better than actuarially sound, a little bit.
• So, in fact... better than actuarially sound there now, right?
• So in fact, we are actuarially sound even a little bit better than actuarially sound a little bit.
• We needed $900 million less to be actuarially sound.
• This year, we need $500 million less to become actuarially sound, but we're not actuarially sound, which

Summary: The Insurance and Banking Subcommittee received a lengthy presentation from Citizens Property Insurance Corporation CEO Tim Serio, with Insurance Commissioner Michael Yaworski also answering questions. Serio reviewed Citizens’ role as Florida’s insurer of last resort, its statutory funding structure, eligibility rules, depopulation program, reinsurance obligations, and the surcharge/emergency assessment mechanisms that can be used if Citizens runs a deficit. He emphasized that recent legislative reforms, combined with lower litigation and improved market conditions, have helped the private market recover and reduced Citizens’ policy count from a peak of about 1.41 million in 2023 to 936,182 at the end of 2024, with a projected drop to about 771,000 by the end of 2025. He also said the reforms reduced Citizens’ rate need and helped avoid an emergency assessment after the 2024 storms. Members asked about Citizens’ rate increases, why Citizens still seeks higher rates despite lower litigation, how the 20% eligibility threshold works, whether Citizens should be wind-only, and whether the state or federal government could help with deficits. Serio explained that Citizens is still charging below actuarially sound rates in most areas, that rate filings reflect reduced litigation and lower reinsurance exposure, and that assessments on all Florida property policyholders are the reason Citizens tries to build surplus and depopulate. He said the depopulation program is working better than in the past, with less than 2% of takeout policies returning to Citizens, and that the Office of Insurance Regulation has been vetting takeout companies more carefully. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on claims handling after Debby, Helene, and Milton, including flood-versus-wind disputes and Citizens’ use of the Division of Administrative Hearings for some claim disputes. Serio said Citizens had received 76,625 claims from the three storms and had paid nearly $823 million in indemnity and expenses as of January 7, 2025. He said many closed-without-payment claims were either below deductible, withdrawn, duplicate, or flood-only, and that Citizens had asked its internal audit function to independently review the claims data and denials. He also described Citizens’ storm outreach, catastrophe response centers, managed-repair program, and claim review process, and said the corporation remains focused on paying valid claims while minimizing the risk of assessments on the broader Florida market.

Transcript Highlights:

• of re rehiring the recommended actuaries of re rehiring the recommended actuaries actuaries<00:10
• Until January 2025, we had Via Actuarial Solutions as our actuary.
• That was to appoint Via Actuarial Solutions as the commission actuary.
• love your thoughts on our act actuary love your thoughts on our act actuary recommendation<00:15
• The motion prevails, and Via Actuarial Services is appointed commission actuary.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , do this tremendous, Actuary, do this tremendous impact on their workflow?
• So I'm looking at the practical aspect of the actuarial review.
• The actuarial review.
• I would hope, too, that the actuarial actuaries, I,...
• I would hope, too, that the actuarial actuaries, I guess, would have conversations and be in communication

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Then actuarial analyses required additional payments to the actuary to develop those estimates.
• session relied on updated actuarial analyses from Milman, who created the October actuarial analysis.
• findings of that Actuarial findings of that Actuarial analysis<00:14:53.079> so<00:14:53.279
• and got an updated actuarial analysis, and each actuarial analysis had multiple scenarios — scenario
• subsequent years and so the actuaries subsequent years and so the actuaries had<01:14:10.280>

Bills: HF3

Keywords: legislative auditor, reporting, accountability, state finance, executive agency oversight, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• our senior actuary.
• And we are actuaries with OSA here today to share with you the results of the preliminary 2025 actuarial
• the actuarial valuation, excuse me, the actuarial value of asset method when that was established.
• The actuary is it probably is really the actuary.
• Well, the actuary is it probably is really the actuary, and our pension funding council should be applauded

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But do we have an expert actuary on the board? No, we don't.
• I will say one thing about actuaries.
• So again, back to the actuaries.
• The superintendent cannot charge less than the actuary.
• Would appoint learned actuaries and so forth.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You should all have in your packet a copy of an actuarial and consultant services agreement.
• Generally, your actuarial would be a separate entity from the broker or the other person. Yep.
• This will be your own actuary that can give you an independent look at anything that's going to come
• So just wanted to kind of see how that might compare to the other actuarial...
• So I just wanted to kind of see how that might compare to the other actuarial service that we've already

Summary: The Executive Subcommittee met and first considered a waiver request from the Stuttgart School District to use the TIPS interlocal purchasing system for a turf replacement project instead of a traditional competitive bid. Superintendent Jeff McKinney explained that three bids were received but none fully met the RFP specifications, including warranty and insurance requirements. After review by the district’s architect, the committee approved the waiver request by voice vote. The committee then approved a consultant services agreement between the Bureau of Legislative Research and Work Ed Consulting to support the Hospital Medicaid Developmental Disability Subcommittee’s study under Act 145. Legislators said the consultant would help develop workforce-system reform legislation for the 2027 session, and noted the firm’s experience in other states. The contract runs through June 30, 2027, with a maximum amount of $158,000, and was approved without opposition. Next, the committee approved an actuarial and consultant services agreement with Perrin Knight to provide ongoing actuarial support for the state property insurance captive and related legislative oversight work. Bureau staff said the contract would run from April 1 through December 31, 2027, with a maximum amount of $475,000, though only actual hours and travel would be billed. Members asked about budgeting, invoice timing, and overlap with other insurance consultants, and the agreement was approved. Finally, the committee approved using Bureau committee room funds to renovate Committee Room C in the Big Mac Building, citing outdated audiovisual equipment and the need to update the room to match other recent renovations before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the actuaries assume a 2.65% payroll growth annually.
• And the actuaries assume a 2.65% payroll growth annually.
• that they've earned and the actuary that they've earned and the actuary assumes<00:24:52.159>
• And the actuaries assume a would have.
• So based on the actuarial assumptions.

Keywords: Finance - Room 216, 2 February, 2026; 3:00 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first heard a bill concerning tax increment financing (TIFs). The sponsor explained that the measure would not change the existing financing structure, but would add an optional arrangement cities could negotiate with developers: a revenue bond guaranteed by taxes generated from the development. The goal was to let developers guarantee the bond and access funds sooner on the front end of a project rather than waiting to see whether tax revenues meet projections. After no questions, the committee adopted a motion that the title was sufficient and reported the bill out do pass as a committee substitute. The next bill, Senate Bill 2873, came from the Department of Revenue and dealt with enforcement of the state’s vape registry law. The sponsor said the bill fills a gap left by prior legislation by creating a statutory forfeiture process for seized products valued at $20,000 or less, including notice, a right to contest, and rules for disposition of forfeited property. The committee then moved the bill title sufficient and do pass, and it was reported out. Senate Bill 2894 addressed local improvement projects funded in 2021 through 2024 that had not been executed or had unspent money remaining. The bill would require return of certain funds after a memorandum of understanding was not signed or after three years with unspent balances, require remittance of unspent interest, allow withholding of some city diversion or state aid road funds for noncompliance, and require periodic status reports to the Legislative Budget Office. The sponsor also offered an amendment giving entities 60 days from the bill’s effective date to request a one-time six-month extension; the amendment and the bill both received favorable votes and were reported out. Senate Bill 2910 would require employers in the PERS system to settle the books if a unit of government or other employer terminates participation. Senate Bill 2911 proposed a new return-to-work option for PERS retirees, shortening the separation period from 90 days to 30 days and allowing certain retirees to return to public employment at up to 80% of the stated salary, with employer-paid retirement contributions and possible health insurance support. The sponsor said the bill would exclude elected officials, K-12 superintendents, and IHL/community college administrators, and he discussed the bill’s expected effect on PERS funding with questions from members about actuarial impact and whether the proposal would affect existing retirement rules. Both bills were discussed but the transcript excerpt does not show final committee action on Senate Bill 2911.

Transcript Highlights:

• The second part would be a review of the actuarial fiscal note for the bill.
• and today we will be Michael Harbour, an actuary with OSA.
• And again, this state actuary would continue to serve as a plan actuary for the restated Left 1.
• Again, for the record, my name is Michael Harbour, actuary for OSA.
• mention the fact that pension actuaries and health care actuaries use very different assumptions and

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy approved its minutes by roll call vote, then postponed an OSA annual update due to a family emergency. The committee received an Open Public Meetings Act refresher from Assistant Attorney General Kate Adams, who reviewed key compliance points including quorum and serial meetings, notice and agenda rules, executive session limits, public comment requirements, and the consequences of violations. She also noted a litigation hold notice sent to members and provided resources for further guidance. Staff then briefed the committee on E2 Second Substitute House Bill 2034, which restates and terminates LEOFF 1 on June 30, 2029, creates a restated LEOFF 1 funded by transferred assets, and places excess assets into a pension surplus holding account that could later be used by the state. The bill requires DRS to seek IRS guidance, directs OSA to calculate the transfer amount and assess any future unfunded liability, assigns implementation duties to DRS, OSA, the Pension Funding Council, the State Investment Board, and the Treasurer, and requires two SCPP studies on LEOFF 1 medical benefits and policy oversight. OSA’s actuary estimated the transfer to the surplus holding account at about $3.9 billion under current assumptions and said the bill increases the modeled chance of future state contributions if the restated plan falls below 100% funded; members asked about IRS timing, the 2029 transfer date, and whether the 110% buffer is sufficient. The committee also received an update on the LEOFF 1 medical benefits study required by the bill. Staff said the study will examine the administration of pension boards and medical liabilities, likely focusing on medical benefits, and will gather anonymized data from local boards, cities, counties, and related agencies over the next three years. Members and public commenters discussed the number and structure of local boards, whether spouses receive medical benefits, and the possibility of regionalizing or consolidating administration. No action was taken, but staff said they would return with milestones and further updates. Finally, staff outlined a possible Plan 3 study, prompted by DRS, to evaluate whether the original goals of Plan 3 have been met after 30 years. The proposed study would review historical context, member choice outcomes, policy questions, and possible recommendations over a two-year period. The committee also heard an update on new correspondence procedures, including a new online web form, a correspondence log in meeting packets, and removal of correspondence from the public website. During public comment, retiree groups urged the committee to pursue an ongoing COLA for PERS and TRS Plan 1, with interim ad hoc COLAs until then, while LEOFF 1 retirees urged caution about changing the current board structure and emphasized the complexity of medical benefit administration.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're deciding if it's an actuarial.
• It has no actuarial effect on the state because it comes out of the individual's pockets.
• We're deciding if it's an actuarial. ...of it, but that's not what we're deciding.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• It seems like this sort of change will have an actuarial impact.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:16:04.480> advice uh like not following actuarial advice uh like not following actuarial
• actuarial methodology that is used. actuarial methodology that is used.
• held in reserves in case the actuaries held in reserves in case the actuaries uh<01:34:51.440>
• they're one of the premier actuarial they're one of the premier actuarial firms<01:44:50.400>
• , qualified actuaries.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The actuarial analysis described that as preferable.
• that produced the 2023 October actuarial analysis, updated actuarial analysis were completed for proposed
• that produced the 2023 October actuarial analysis.
• to not be actuarial sound.
• Actuarial Actuarial study<01:13:28.000> but<01:13:28.960> um<01:13:29.960> I<01

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on the fiscal note process, prompted by concerns raised in a prior hearing about the fiscal note for the Paid Family and Medical Leave law. Chair Marty, Senator Pratt, and Senator Wiklund said the goal was not to revisit the bill itself but to strengthen understanding of fiscal note standards, the role of the Legislative Budget Office (LBO), and communication with agencies. They emphasized bipartisan concern that fiscal notes must be respected and that the process should be clearer going forward. Christian Larison of the LBO explained that the 2024 fiscal note issues stemmed from three main problems: choosing the proper baseline for a program that had not yet started, interpreting the seven-day qualifying event/waiting period, and determining whether DEED could adjust the first-year premium rate. He said the LBO, DEED, MMB, and House fiscal staff ultimately used the October 2023 actuarial analysis as the baseline because it was the most recent and likely most accurate estimate, but that choice meant the fiscal note did not show the difference from the 2023 enacted budget. He also described how DEED later interpreted the seven-day provision as a waiting period and how the premium-rate assumptions affected the fiscal impact. Larison outlined possible responses, including more assertive early communication from the LBO, providing more detailed analysis in unusual cases, and possibly creating a working group through the LBO Oversight Commission to consider new standards for substantial assumption changes, complex new programs, and third-party actuarial work. He also noted the LBO has authority to issue unapproved fiscal notes if standards are not met, though it has not used that authority. In questions, Senator Murphy asked about protecting the credibility of fiscal notes, and Larison said maintaining independence, objectivity, and consistent standards is central to the LBO’s role. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Our actuary and actuaries in general are notoriously conservative in what they So we never assume that
• What that is so so GRS is Gabriel Rotor Smith that is our our actuary that we use use for our actuarial
• There is what Texas statute says is the definition of actuarial soundness and then there's what actuaries
• That's not to say that we're actuarially unsound, it just says that we are not.
• paying into the system would make it actuarially unsound in your opinion?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It has no actuarial effect on the state because it comes out of the individual's pockets.
• We're deciding if it's an actuarial... ...of it, but that's not what we're deciding.
• We share it with both the actuarial consultant as well as our IRS tax compliance consultant.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• Seems like this sort of change will have an actuarial impact.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.

Transcript Highlights:

• All right, we're going to move on to Michael Harbor, the actuary, for the actuarial update.
• Again, for the record, Michael Harbor, actuary for OSA.
• You know, on actuarial updates, of course, we heard some in the previous comments about the actuarial
• We might include that report from our actuary on the Pension Funding Council actions.
• The actuary representative made recommendations for changes, right? Correct. State actuary amounts.

Summary: The executive committee approved the October minutes and received brief updates from the Assistant Attorney General and the committee actuary. The actuary reminded members that OSA prepares actuarial fiscal notes during session and said staff would begin work soon on analysis for the upcoming session, including updates related to the COLA bill and other pension measures. Senator Conway asked that updated actuarial materials be shared with committee members as they are completed, and staff agreed to do so. Most of the meeting focused on committee discussion of pension policy issues, especially the ad hoc COLA for Plan 1 retirees and the broader study work on Left 1/Plan 1 topics, including merger and termination-restatement bills such as Senate Bill 5084. Members discussed the need for a COLA, the overfunding of some pension plans, the role of the legislature versus the committee, and the importance of keeping the State Investment Board separate from pension policy recommendations. Several members said the interim work had clarified many questions and would make future legislative decisions easier, while also noting that the committee’s study role had been completed. The committee also reviewed constituent correspondence, which included 15 items, with substantial public interest in the ad hoc COLA and related pension bills. Staff presented the draft interim work plan and proposed December agenda items, including possible education on excess compensation and an update on demographic experience studies. After discussion, members agreed not to hold a December meeting, with the understanding that any remaining informational items could be sent by email. The motion to skip the December meeting passed unanimously, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• actuaries does not relate to budget.
• So the actuaries are built to the actuarial practice, and work is to look at what the cost of the program
• Actuaries work very hard to not be budget-driven.
• So there's a Budget in actuarial science.
• But I do hope that you all, in the agency, your actuaries and the agency's actuaries, are trying to figure

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing focused first on Oregon Medicaid coordinated care organization (CCO) finances and rate setting. Oregon Health Authority staff explained how 2025 CCO financial results will inform 2027 capitation rates, including reserve requirements, subcapitation arrangements, and major cost drivers such as behavioral health, pharmacy, rural hospital costs, and dental directed payments. They said the Legislature’s added 2025 funding materially improved CCO margins and that, without it, the program would have been negative overall. Members asked about retained earnings, subcapitation, behavioral health utilization, ABA therapy, and whether outcomes are being evaluated; OHA said rate setting is actuarial and that CCOs, OHA, and other partners all play roles in monitoring efficacy and access. OHA also reviewed House Bill 4039 changes intended to increase transparency and give CCOs earlier access to rate information and reconciliation exhibits. CCO representatives then testified that the system is under significant financial pressure and that behavioral health state-directed payments, benefit changes, and federal uncertainty from H.R. 1 are reducing flexibility. CareOregon said it has lost more than $500 million over the last couple of years and is now making provider terminations and other network changes to align spending with available funding, while emphasizing that CCOs must make hard decisions about which services and providers can be sustained. Eastern Oregon CCO said rural and frontier factors, cost-based hospitals, air ambulance needs, and statewide efficiency adjustments are not fully reflected in rates, and that dental funding is especially strained. Trillium similarly warned that state-directed payments and benefit expansion pressures are constraining the global budget model and that H.R. 1 could worsen acuity and volatility. Members pressed the witnesses on who is responsible for evaluating treatment effectiveness, especially for ABA and psychotherapy, and on how utilization limits and reimbursement changes are being used to control costs. The committee then shifted to an overview of the Affordable Care Act and Oregon’s commercial insurance market. Department of Consumer and Business Services staff explained actuarial value, metal tiers, premium tax credits, medical loss ratio rules, and the main drivers of premium rates: cost trend, utilization trend, and administrative costs. They said mandates have likely added only a limited amount to premiums over the past decade, though the exact effect is difficult to isolate, and they gave examples of how high-cost, low-volume services versus broad, high-utilization services can affect rates differently. Staff also noted that Providence Health Plan and PacificSource Health Plans are withdrawing from the individual market, though consumers should still have at least three insurer options in every county and may have four in many counties. The division said it is in the middle of reviewing proposed 2027 rates and will continue its public rate review process, including hearings and written comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• > found<00:30:56.080> the It's their actuaries that found the It's their actuaries that
• Your actuarial shows that you're going to need that money, but you didn't really have that actuarial
• Your actuarial shows that you're going to need that money, but you didn't really have that actuarial
• actuarial help until after the fact." actuarial help until after the fact."
• You know, we have the actuarials.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up several insurance-related bills. Senate Bill 47, concerning health insurance policies related to the birth of the mother, was moved ought to pass with no amendments and was approved on a 6-0 vote. Senate Bill 121, dealing with Medicare Advantage plan notice requirements, was amended to reduce the required notice from 120 days to 90 days and to remove a federal citation; the department said the change was to avoid conflict with federal notice rules. After discussion about the stress caused when carriers leave the Medicare Advantage market, the committee voted ought to pass as amended, 7-0. The committee then heard a detailed explanation of the continuing care retirement communities bill, described by the Insurance Department as a rewrite of a 1989 law to modernize oversight, require quarterly financial reporting as an early warning system, create a bill of rights for residents, and clarify issues such as entrance fees and removal of dangerous residents. A member recalled the bill’s original purpose as protecting solvency because residents pay substantial upfront fees. The bill was moved ought to pass and approved unanimously, 7-0. The final major discussion concerned a pooled risk organizations bill. Members debated whether oversight should remain with the Secretary of State or be moved to the Insurance Department. Supporters of moving it argued the issue is solvency, citing concerns about reserve levels, prior insolvencies, and the Insurance Department’s expertise. Opponents said the Secretary of State’s office had historically overseen the entities and that the bill would fundamentally change how they operate. A straw vote favored an amendment, but the committee ultimately voted to retain the bill for further work, with plans to revisit it later in the session.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's what actuaries are for.
• report about what was in their actuaries report about what their<04:08:42.800> actuary<04:08:
• their actuary wanted them to be at. their actuary wanted them to be at.
• two actuaries here. Wall-E from Casco. two actuaries here. Wall-E from Casco.
• <05:15:32.718> The health trust external actuaries. The health trust external actuaries.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 47, sponsored by Sen. Regina Birdsell at the request of the Insurance Department. The bill would codify the department’s interpretation that a birth mother’s health insurance is the primary coverage for a newborn, unless the mother has no insurance or coverage under an employer-sponsored plan. Birdsell and Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the measure is a clarification of existing practice and intended to protect vulnerable newborns; a question from Rep. Miles clarified that if a young woman is on her parents’ policy, the newborn would generally be covered under that family coverage. The hearing on SB 47 was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 121, introduced by Grant Bosi for Sen. Kevin Avard, which would require insurers to notify the Insurance Department when they stop writing an entire line of business or, in some cases, Medicare Advantage plans. Commissioner Benton Court said the bill arose from disruption in the Medicare Advantage market, where consumers, brokers, and the department were confused by carriers changing or ending offerings; he said the department wanted a simple notification requirement so it could better advise consumers. Members discussed network adequacy, county-based service areas, and the fact that the bill would make notice a condition of licensure, with possible fines or license action for noncompliance. Witness Paula Rogers of AHIP said her group supported the bill if amended, and the department indicated it would support a change from a 120-day notice period to 90 days to align with state rules; the committee planned to work on an amendment in subcommittee. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 247, introduced by Rep. Brian Cole, which would prohibit network exclusion of pharmacies that refuse to dispense prescriptions when PBM reimbursement is below acquisition cost. Cole argued the bill is meant to stop pharmacies from being forced to sell drugs at a loss, describing PBMs as middlemen and saying the measure is a compromise that protects local pharmacies. Members questioned whether consumers would pay more and whether pharmacies voluntarily enter PBM contracts; Cole responded that the bill would let pharmacies refuse unprofitable fills while consumers could still obtain the drug through mail order or other channels. He also said the issue has changed over time because the practice now affects a much larger share of generics and is concentrated among a few PBMs. The hearing remained open as questions continued, with no vote taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• We share it with both the actuarial consultant of this bill.
• We share it with both the actuarial consultant as well as our IRS tax compliance consultant.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• I think these sorts of retirement bills are ones that very obviously require actuarial analysis.
• Seems like this sort of change will have an actuarial impact.

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• My name is Emily Canuteson, and I'm an actuarial consultant with Via Actuarial Solutions. the coming
• As the LCPR's actuary, we provide independent actuarial advice and another perspective to the LCPR.
• we provide independent is actuary we provide independent Actuarial<00:40:59.560> advice<00:41
• provide expert test Tony on Actuarial provide expert test Tony on Actuarial topics<00:42:58.760>
• The systems' retained actuary, or the LCPR-retained actuary in this case, us, what we do is we gather

Keywords: 1187, senate, all