February 5, 2026, 6:23 PM Central Time
- Milwaukee County has renewed medical contracts for its employees that expired at the end of 2025.
- The Board of Supervisors approved a five-year renewal worth $450 million with UnitedHealthcare and Optum Rx.
- The County Executive, David Crowley, faced criticism over an oversight that led to the dismissal of some human resources staff.
- Supervisors raised concerns regarding the contract’s financial review and the rushed renewal process.
On February 5, Milwaukee County recommitted to managing employee and retiree health benefits. This follows an announcement from HR officials just a week earlier that the previous contract was nearing its expiration.
The Board voted 13-5 to extend the contract with UnitedHealthcare and Optum Rx for an additional five years, totaling around $450 million. This decision came amid substantial criticism of Crowley’s administration for allowing the previous contract to lapse.
There are worries about the high costs of out-of-network services and concerns over financial oversight, particularly after the Auditor General raised red flags about lack of scrutiny and audit oversight in previous contracts.
Supervisors are keen to resolve the contract gap and assure employees and retirees that health care access will remain stable since the county is self-insured and works solely with UnitedHealthcare for managing the plan.
However, there’s skepticism about renewing the prior contract due to doubts and issues highlighted by the Auditor General.
The five supervisors opposed to the renewal—Patty Logsdon, Deanna Alexander, Steve Taylor, Kathleen Vincent, and Sheldon Wasserman—pointed to ongoing concerns and the rapid pace of the decision as their reasons for dissent.
In support of the renewal were Stephen Shea, Priscilla Coggs-Jones, Willie Johnson Jr., Sequanna Taylor, Felesia Martin, Sean Rowland, Juan Miguel Martinez, Caroline Gomez-Tom, Justin Bielinski, Skye Capriolo, Jack Ekblad, Ann O’Connor, and Chairman Marcelia Nicholson-Bovell.
Logsdon expressed a sense of urgency to uncover the underlying issues, emphasizing the need to protect employees and taxpayers from any repercussions of the oversight.
Several supervisors, regardless of their vote, indicated that the contract’s expiration exposed larger problems within Crowley’s administration, citing a lack of transparency regarding financial deficits.
Some supervisors acknowledged Crowley’s prompt actions to address the situation and terminate the HR employees responsible for the lapse.
In a statement after the vote, Crowley lauded the renewal and indicated he would sign it promptly. He highlighted the need for quick actions when mistakes happen, noting this instance as a result of human error.
Supervisors Warn of Deeper Issues
However, some supervisors, including Martin, Rowland, Wasserman, and Taylor, believe the problem extends beyond a single employee’s mistakes.
Taylor stated that the issue lies squarely within the executive branch’s responsibilities and that they now have to deal with the fallout.
Martin stressed the need for better accountability, pointing out that there were chances for county officials to communicate effectively and address the situation before it escalated.
Rowland highlighted the role of department heads in ensuring work gets done, implying it’s not merely about assigning blame.
While recognizing Crowley’s actions were a step toward resolving the issue, he insisted accountability must extend across all departments.
Wasserman also noted how this incident could tarnish Crowley’s reputation in the electoral race.
Before the contract’s finalization, the supervisors pushed for amendments to incorporate stronger auditing measures for future contracts and ensure compliance with county procurement and ethical standards.
A recently terminated employee revealed that there were violations of county guidelines concerning requests for proposals during the process of finalizing a new contract with an external vendor.
