College anticipates changes to health care benefits
By Kathy Hamlin, News Editor
The Health Insurance Review Committee (HIRC) has released a report of preliminary recommendations for changes to the College's current health care policy.

Among the most significant changes that have been recommended for the health insurance policies of active employees are rises in office visit and emergency room copayments and the requirement of employees choosing individual as opposed to family coverage to pay a percentage of the health care premium which the College Has previously paid in full. The committee has also tentatively recommended changes to the post-retirement health care insurance program.

According to Director of Human Resources Kathryn Bryne, a member of the HIRC, the primary motivation for the changes lies in the rising costs of health care and the increasing liability for post-retirement health care.

"The [HIRC] came about because the Board of Trustees took a look at some trends in the rising cost of health care nationwide and wanted a committee to look at ways that the College might try to reduce the percentage increase in annual health care costs," said Martha Umphrey, associate professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought and member of the HIRC.

Umphrey cited projections that the College and its employees will have to pay at least 18 percent more in health care premiums in the coming year.

"That's continuing a trend that's been going on for a few years," Umphrey said. "We've had double-digit increases in health care costs to the College and its employees annually in the last year or two."

In response to these trends, the HIRC began in September to explore ways to reduce health care costs to the College.

The changes that the committee ultimately decided to include in their preliminary recommendations include an increase in office-visit copay from $5 to $10, an increase in emergency room copay (which is waived if the patient is admitted to the hospital) from $25 to $35 and the requirement of employees on an individual coverage plan to share in the premium cost. The College would subsidize at least 80 percent of the cost of the individual premium, but employees would have to pay the difference.

In addition, the HIRC has recommended that the College subsidize more of the premium cost for employees with lower incomes. Employees choosing family coverage would also be eligible for greater subsidies.

"The committee, especially in relation to asking individuals to pay a percentage of the premium, decided that they would like to implement a sliding scale for the lowest-paid employees so that they would pay less both for individual and for family coverage," Umphrey said.

In addition to the changes for active employees, the HIRC has recommended changes to post-retirement insurance policies: the reimbursement of Medicare Part B premiums would cease, and if the retiree were to predecease his or her spouse, the spouse would be eligible to purchase coverage at the full cost for the rest of his or her lifespan. The changes would not apply to employees currently retired or those who will retire before 2006.

Reaction to the recommended changes has been mixed. "I think it's fair to say that none of us would like to see any benefits reduced or changes," Umphrey said. "No one is happy or pleased to even have to take a look at this issue."

Bryne agreed. "People are not happy about having to pay more," Bryne said. "Some feel that these are reasonable recommendations based on the problems. Others disagree."

Umphrey said that based on what she has heard so far, employees see the changes as moderate, not extreme, but they express concern about the grandfathering issue-that the changes in post-retirement benefits would not apply to those nearing retirement.

Employees are also concerned that they have not had enough input regarding budgetary priorities.

Professor of Chemistry David Hansen expressed concern that the decision was being made too quickly.

"My view is that there needs to be time for full discussion among the faculty and between the faculty and the administration before any changes are implemented," Hansen said. "My concern had been that the administration and the trustees had been moving too quickly to lower faculty benefits, but I applaud their decision to allow more time for discussion," Hansen said, referring to the Board of Trustee's decision to postpone deciding on the changes until October.

At the past two faculty meetings, many faculty members have expressed alarm over the pace at which the process was moving. The Board had originally hoped to approve changes this spring, but the HIRC decided to slow down the process and take time to obtain more faculty input.

According to Bryne, the HIRC has held four open meetings and will hold six more in which faculty can discuss their concerns. In addition, there will be an open meeting of the faculty on April 29 to discuss the changes. The HIRC will then take into account suggestions from the faculty and staff and make alterations to their recommendations, which they will submit to the administration. The Board of Trustees will decide on the changes to be implemented at its October meeting.

"We're really committed to ensuring that we spend sufficient time in the community, meeting with employees to obtain their input and feedback," said Bryne.

Ultimately, the decision about what changes will be made to health care benefits depends on balancing benefits and ensuring the financial security of the College.

"We certainly want to keep our benefits at a level where we can continue to attract and retain faculty of the highest level," Bryne said. "But we also want to maintain a financial equilibrium."

Issue 24, Submitted 2003-04-23 14:42:37