Independent review proposed for Douglas County employee health plan; consultant offers shared‑savings option

Cara Kersh, founder and CEO of the Kersh Group, told the Douglas County Board of Commissioners on June 2 that an independent, board‑focused review of the county's self‑insured employee health plan would give commissioners the "line of sight" they need before signing off on a multiyear, multimillion‑dollar budget. "Approving a number you can't explain isn't really a decision. It's a signature," Kersh said, arguing that an independent review and tailored board education would improve fiduciary oversight without displacing existing HR staff or the county's broker, Holmes Murphy.

Kersh outlined six deliverables including an intake and contract review, an independent assessment of administrative components (TPA, PBM, stop‑loss), tailored board materials and a live workshop. She said the work would not change the broker of record and that any findings would be fully disclosed to the county.

The consultant said the original project price was $25,000 but offered to proceed on a shared‑savings arrangement capped at that amount: "If I find nothing, the county pays nothing. If I find something, the county pays the original fee which I proposed," Kersh said. She also presented a high‑level projection that, without intervention, plan trend could increase by 7.7% over five years and raise costs by roughly $18.2 million, framing the review as a way to give commissioners better budgetary context.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about cost and scope, and several expressed support. Commissioner Morgan called the proposal "an excellent investment" if it costs the county nothing up front. Chief among board concerns were transparency, ensuring the county's vendor contracts are delivering value, and maintaining HR's operational role.

Kersh said the work would focus on board education and an independent second look at plan economics rather than replacing current vendors. She described a scope that includes documentation, vendor performance assessment and an executive summary timed to inform 2027 budget planning.

The presentation concluded without a final vote; the board indicated the item could return for formal action at a future meeting. The county will decide whether to authorize the contract and, if so, whether to accept the consultant's proposed shared‑savings arrangement.

The presentation and follow‑up discussion were part of a broader consent and budget agenda that day; the item was listed as a presentation and may be scheduled later for board action.