Baton Rouge City Council Meeting – September 29, 2025: Health Insurance Plan Approved; Meeting Scheduling Concerns Raised
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Baton Rouge City Council Meeting – September 29, 2025
The Baton Rouge City Council met on September 29, 2025, to consider a health insurance plan for employees and retirees effective January 1, 2026, proposed by Councilwoman Jen Rock, Councilman Cleve Dunn Jr., and Councilman Dwight Hudson. After extensive discussion about savings, impacts on the general fund, and concerns over opt-out provisions for retirees, the council voted 11-1 to approve the plan. Councilman Cleve Dunn Jr. also raised concerns about scheduling future meetings to avoid travel conflicts.
Discussion Items
- The council considered a switch to a Medicare Advantage plan for employees and retirees. Councilman Hearst expressed initial support but raised concerns about an opt-out provision, particularly for specialty care access (e.g., oncology, renal). He noted that while general practitioners are covered, some specialists may not be, potentially harming vulnerable retirees. He clarified the financial impact: overall projected savings are $16.3 million (not $19 million as previously cited); of that, $6.2 million directly affects the general fund deficit. He emphasized that voters should still support the Thrive initiative.
- Councilman Mo questioned the opt-out vs. opt-in process for retirees accustomed to automatic roll-overs. He requested enhanced communication, especially to retirees who have not contacted HR in years. The HR administrator (Angie) confirmed they will use mail, in-person sessions, phone calls, and emails, and will track responses. Councilman Mo asked for a way to identify long-unresponsive retirees; HR stated they do not have that breakdown but will double down on outreach to non-responders.
- Councilwoman Coleman asked whether any plans are being removed; the answer was no, the Medicare Advantage plan has been offered for six years.
Key Outcomes
- The council approved the health insurance plan by a vote of 11-1. Voting yes: Councilman Noel, Councilman Kenny, Councilman Gurday, Councilman Moak, Councilman Don, Councilwoman Harris, Councilwoman Amorosa, Councilman Hudson, Councilwoman Coleman, Councilman Adams, Councilwoman Rocca. Voting no: Councilman Hearst.
- Councilman Cleve Dunn Jr. urged that future meetings be rescheduled when several council members travel (noting recurring out-of-town conferences in January and September) to avoid wasting taxpayer money and time. No formal action was taken on this point.
Meeting Transcript
Designed for employees and retirees effective January 1st, 2026 by Councilwoman Jen Rock, uh, Councilman Cleve Dunn Jr. and Councilman Dwight Hudson. Anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, we'll go to council. Go. Motion by Councilwoman Rock and second by councilwoman. Oh, sorry. Councilwoman Coleman. Uh, Councilman Dunn Jr. Just after the item is passed, I want to upon a personal previous please. Councilman Hearst. So I had a meeting with Hub, I had a meeting with um Angie, uh Blue Cross, and and I explained to them because I want to make this clear that I got an email this morning saying thank you for voting no transitioning us from where we are to where they want to take us. And my response to that individual was it might be the right plan for you. Don't discount the plan, just make sure that you compare your current plan to your older plan to ensure that what's in it covers what you need. And I made sure that I said it on the call because I'm not against the Medicare Advantage. I was told that everything but the individualized plan that we have is horrible out in the marketplace. And Hub agreed with me. They've heard that from hospitals and other folks to Medicare Advantage is awful. So in this case, um there were a couple of questions that came up that made me have a cause for pause, and I'm gonna ask Angie to come up to the microphone. Because I want to clear this up for the public because we have Thrive on the ballot, and it's extremely important that we disseminate information that's relevant to what's going on in November, but the state of the city. So I saw that in tons of discussions, the number 19 million was brought up. What is the gross number? And then let's talk about what number actually affects the general fund because what I don't want people to do is say, oh, the city saved 19 million. Um there's no need for us to vote yes to thrive. That was one of my biggest concerns that I brought up last meeting. So my question is what are the overall savings and then how much directly impacts the general fund, which is what the people that are listening and watching want to know if the city's in a crisis, how much of this directly affects that crisis? So can you talk about the overall number and then talk about the direct number that affects the crisis? So the overall number that's being proposed from the house. A little over 16.3 million dollars. So it's not 19 million. We're moving towards the 19 million. Y'all had passed an ordinance that asked us to consider 19 million dollars worth of savings. What's being proposed now is 16 million, 16.3. So we are still considering and moving towards to getting to that full 19 million. However, this was something considering the time that we were given to implement these changes that we feel are attainable and reasonable, and less disruptive to the employee and retirees. And that's great. And again, I'm glad you put in the employee and retirees first. So how much of this 16 million directly impacts the 21 million dollar deficit in terms of savings, which is the general fund money. So you might not know a direct number, but the what you gave me a number, so just repeat the number publicly. So in the health insurance plan, six point two million is the general fund savings that we are seeing in the health insurance program as well as the post-employment program. So it's not 19 is six. I'm saying that publicly, and that's not to go. I'm glad that they said I think six million is a lot to save. And I'm glad that they went to that size. It's not the point. The point is for the public to know that you still need to vote yes to five. Because 19 million says if I'm a voter and I'm saying 19 million, I'm saying, well, man, they could find two million somewhere, cut some cost savings. I'm okay with a two million dollar deficit, but a 21 million dollar deficit is different at six than versus nineteen. So I just want to make that clear to the public. And I had one question, because I want y'all to know I was actually in favor of voting for this until the op the op out part came to me.
openpublica.com