[Vision2020] ID Public Records Law: UI

Tue Oct 6 17:52:47 PDT 2009

Hi Wayne,

Good point, and I'll bring up another consequence:  I know of several UI
employees who had always been able to provide health insurance for their
families (particularly children) through the UI who can no longer afford to
do so.  Indeed, the benefits person I spoke with told me she was unable to
afford to cover her husband!

With respect to the children, some of those children are now covered through
another parent by a different employer . . . and some are simply uninsured,
as are some spouses.  Either way, the fact that some UI employees can no
longer afford to purchase health insurance -- or meaningful health insurance
- for their families through their employer makes the UI a very FAMILY
UNFRIENDLY employer.

This practice of making it financially impractical for employees to provide
health insurance for their families is also a prime example of why there's
such a health care crisis -- and a health insurance crisis - in this
country.

One other point:  the UI has a "if you cover one dependent, you must cover
all dependents" policy.  What this means is that some employees with
families are forced to pay premiums for coverage the UI will likely never
pay a thin dime on, which further erodes the wages of some employees.

Let's say I work at the UI and have a child.  My husband has great health
insurance through his employer, but there's no coverage for dependents, so I
want cover my child through my employment with the UI.  The UI, however,
won't allow me to do so UNLESS I also cover my husband who already HAS
insurance.  I'm assuming everyone knows it's significantly less expensive to
insure a child than a spouse, yet the UI would force me to pay to cover my
already insured husband in order for me to be able to cover my child.

Additionally, because the UI (or perhaps BCI - I don't know which entity is
responsible for the change) has moved from coordination of benefits to
maintenance of benefits, the UI will greedily collect the premium from me
for my husband even though they won't ever pay a claim for him.  What a
racket!

It's a racket, BTW, that makes statistics look better, and it's a racket
highly paid benefits consultants have learned to distort for their clients.
The same racket applies to a policy of pricing insurance coverage such that
employees can't cover their families, or are financially forced into high
deductible plans:  those highly paid benefits consultants don't give a rip
if that's shifting health care costs to other employers in the community . .
. or to all of us in the form of uninsured health care costs.  Their purpose
is to show employers how to "manage" -- cut back -- their costs to justify
the consultant's high compensation, which takes away funds that would
otherwise be available for things like actual employee benefits, jobs, or
academic program preservation. 

And, when I say "highly paid" benefits consultants, perhaps folks would be
interested in knowing that the UI estimated paying its current benefits
consultant (Buck Consultants) a whopping $250,000.00 for FY09 alone.  It's a
continuing contract, so that's not a one-time expense, and there was another
highly paid benefits consultant before this one.

It troubles me greatly that the UI has become the kind of employer that
apparently looks at the erosion of employee and family health care benefits
as a fair-game to save money.

For those who don't know, funding for state employee health care benefits
comes from the State:  the State provides $8,440 per year per full-time
employee.  That rate is the same whether the state employee works for the
UI, for BSU, for LCSC, or for any other state agency.

Which brings me back to the question of why UI employees - especially those
with families - are at such a distinct financial disadvantage when it comes
to health insurance?!  The State has managed to continue to successfully
negotiate a complete range of affordable insurance options for  employees -
those with and without families - running the gamut from "traditional"
health insurance to good PPO coverage to CDHC (aka, high deductible)
coverage.  Their skill, or the larger pool, or whatever has served employees
in the state pool well while whatever path the UI has followed hasn't,
particularly for employees who receive lower compensation, are older, have
health challenges, or have families.

Saundra Lund

Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.

~ Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****

From: Wayne Price [mailto:bear at moscow.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:57 AM
To: Saundra Lund
Cc: 'Paul Rumelhart'; 'Moscow Vision 2020'; 'Rosemary Rose Huskey'
Subject: [Vision2020] ID Public Records Law: UI

Saundra,

Your message below has also brought up another unintended consequence that
has resulted from the insurance problem - Law suits!

"And, even for those able to make minimal contributions to an HSA, they may

never get ahead.  All it may take is your kid falling of his bike & breaking
his arm, or your daughter getting hit by a softball & needing stitches, or a
slip on the ice, or an asthma attack to wipe out the little saved . . . and
a good chunk of you annual salary to boot."

A slip on the ice and underinsured? Result is to sue the property owner.
Who threw the softball that resulted in little Susie needing stitched up?
Sue them.

Billy falls off his bike due to an uneven sidewalk - Sue the property owner!

Folks that would normally just shake off the incident don't anymore. Because
of the lack of insurance (or under insured) the solution is sue them.

Wayne

On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Saundra Lund wrote:

Hi Again Paul,

You wrote:
" I'm not quite sure why my ginormous and presumably unearned salary has
become such a big issue.  I was letting you know that there are at least a
few situations where people are happily saving money on this plan."

A couple of points.

I'll say *again* I'm truly glad Plan H is working well for you.  As a member
of the UI community, I would certainly hope you would wish the same for the
UI employees -- that they have affordable access to health insurance that
works well for them -- who can afford nothing BUT Plan H that ISN'T working
well for them.

And, I apologize if it sounded like I was picking on your salary -- that
wasn't my intention.  I don't know what you make, and until your response, I
didn't know you had no dependents, either. When I first started looking into
the whole health insurance debacle in this country, I learned that rural
parts of the country face unique challenges with respect to both health
*care* and health *insurance*.  Looking for an easy quick & dirty
comparison, I thought I'd compare UI & BSU.  The results were shocking, and
not in a good way.  I then thought maybe I'd best check out ISU so I
wouldn't have a sample of one that could very well be skewed.  When the
rates were identical, I checked out LCSC only to see that they have the same
excellent choices and prices as the other two, and that's when I learned
that the reason for the excellent choices and prices are because they are
part of the state pool.

Clearly, UI employees ***with families*** are at a HUGE financial
disadvantage with respect to health insurance, and that became my refrain.

However, the more I asked questions and talked to UI employees, the more I
heard that it's *not* just UI employees with families -- single employees
are unhappy, too, particularly those towards the bottom of the
university-wide compensation spread.  If you're above that level, congrats
and I'm happy to assume you earn your salary just the same as the cleaning
specialist who's earning $21,000 a year  :-)

I don't know how old you are, but allow me to point out that living on Ramen
noodles and pancakes is an entirely different thing when you are in your 20s
than when you are in your 40s . . . or older.

It sounds like Plan H is a really good fit for you, but if you've kept up
with the health care debate, you surely understand that HSAs really *aren't*
appropriate for a great many people, yet that turned out to be the *only*
affordable option for a lot of UI employees.  You may also know that the
whole CDHC theory is hotly debated, and HSAs are perceived to be a
cornerstone of CDHC.  I think for people who WANT to take the risk with what
is modified catastrophic only coverage, that's their choice; however, I
vehemently disagree with a large employer like UI pricing the vast majority
of employees with families out of anything BUT a high deductible HSA plan.
It's just completely immoral, IMHO.

But, let's get back to my main point, please:  what on earth is going on
that UI employees are at such a HUGE health insurance disadvantage compared
to other state employees?!  If the 25,000+ state employees -- including
those just 30 miles away at LCSC -- were all in the same boat, that would be
one thing, but employees in the state pool are at a distinct advantage when
it comes to health insurance.  In addition to the real-life difference this
makes to UI employees, it's also harmful when it comes to recruiting faculty
and staff, which isn't good for the UI community.

You also wrote:
"If you are putting money into the HSA, then you will have some in the
account that can be used when trying to meet your higher deductible.  I
understand that the first year is a crap shoot - you may need to pay $X when
you have yet put that much into the account."

But, Paul, that's a big IF in your first sentence.  Quite a few of the
people I know who were financially forced into Plan H aren't able to benefit
much -- if at all -- from the HSA because they just can't afford to
contribute -- or contribute much -- to an HSA.  Rewind to my example of a
single parent with two children with a gross pay of $40,000 and tell me how
much you realistically think he or she could contribute to an HSA.  We know
there are more than a few UI employees who qualify for food stamps, for
Pete's sake -- it's not difficult to understand how those in that situation
just can't contribute to an HSA, is it?

And, even for those able to make minimal contributions to an HSA, they may
never get ahead.  All it may take is your kid falling of his bike & breaking
his arm, or your daughter getting hit by a softball & needing stitches, or a
slip on the ice, or an asthma attack to wipe out the little saved . . . and
a good chunk of you annual salary to boot.

You also wrote:
"What are the differences in coverage between Plan A and Plan H?  I'm not
trying to claim that Plan H is better, I simply don't know."

Ron sent you the link, so you can check that out, but I'll throw out a
couple of examples for those who just want a quick glimpse.  The deductibles
are dramatically different with Plan A being a heck of a lot better ($350
individual / $1050 family aggregate), and Plan B being even better ($175
individual / $525 family aggregate), and Plan H sucking ($1150 single /
$2300 family).  Of course, the employee premium is higher for Plans A & B.

But, there are other very real differences as well.  For those able to
afford Plan A (or Plan B) premiums, they can see a doctor if they get sick
for a very reasonable *pre-deductible* co-pay.  For those on Plan H, you pay
EVERYTHING (except wellness/preventative care) *until* you meet the
deductible.

For those able to afford Plan A, should you or a family member need an
ambulance, it will only cost you a $50 *pre-deductible* co-pay.  For those
with Plan H, you'll pay the entire amount unless or until you've met the
deductible, and then insurance will cover 70% of UCR costs.

And, of course, the coverage levels are less for those with Plan H even once
the deductible is met.  For someone with Plan A or (B), you have a $25 (or
$15) co-pay if you have to go to the QuickCare; that same visit will cost
someone with Plan H about $41 IF they have met the deductible.  Generally
speaking, Plan A pays 80%, Plan B pays 90%, and Plan H pays 70%.

OTOH, the family out-of-pocket maximums are lower for those on Plan H than
for those on the UI's Plan A.

Paul, both Rose & I have tried to get stats for many of the questions you're
asking.  Previously, statistics were readily available; now, the UI acts
like you are asking for top secret information when you ask.  Frankly, if
the UI wants to act secretive and suspicious -- and to tell different
stories to different audiences -- I'm going think there's a reason for the
complete lack of transparency until proven otherwise.

You also wrote:
"It's my understanding that we haven't been on the State plan for years, if
ever.  What would we have paid if we had stayed with Regence?"

According to the Benefits person I spoke with, the UI has never been in the
state pool.  My understanding is the question has arisen periodically -- I
think someone has asked it at every Open Enrollment meeting I've attended --
and the explanation has always been that it would be disadvantageous to UI
employees because we are a healthier pool.

Clearly, that explanation hasn't held any water for at least the last two
years yet it continues to be the explanation offered.

I don't know what the premiums would be had we stayed with Regence because
the UI jumped ship for FY04, IIRC.

However, I can tell you that the City of Moscow has Regence as their
carrier, and they are looking at a 4.5% premium increase.  The City
apparently covers the cost for employees as well as 50% of the cost for
dependents, if I correctly understood Mr. Riedner's comments in the
9/28/2009 Administrative Committee meeting.  Because employees didn't get
raises, the City is proposing to absorb the 4.5% increase so that employees
don't see their wages eroded, and I say KUDOS to the idea.

Of course, I don't know what City employees pay in premiums or details of
the coverage, but I sure hope our hard-working City employees have better
coverage than the two-thirds of hard-working UI employees stuck with the
high deductible Plan H.

Again, if all state employees were in the same rotten boat as UI employees,
that would be one thing, but they aren't.  State employees have two
infinitely more affordable health insurance options in addition to an
affordable high deductible plan where  one could CHOOSE to individually open
an HSA, if I correctly understand the regulations (no guarantee there!).

If you -- or anyone else -- has read this far, thanks  :-)

Saundra Lund
Moscow, ID

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2009 through life plus
70 years, Saundra Lund.  Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside
the Vision 2020 forum without the express written permission of the
author.*****

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Rumelhart [mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 7:21 PM
To: Saundra Lund
Cc: 'Wayne Price'; 'Moscow Vision 2020'; 'Rosemary Rose Huskey'
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ID Public Records Law: UI

Saundra,

I had every confidence that you had crunched the numbers.  I just wanted 
to know what plans and what options.  More below.

Saundra Lund wrote:

Paul wrote:

"Where does the $191 per pay period number come from?  Which plan, what

options?"

<lots of great information snipped for brevity>

Paul, I'm truly glad the CHOICE you made to go with Plan H is working for

you, but I would certainly hope you've not lost the humanity to understand

that people who earn half what you make feel very differently about being

financially forced into Plan H.  Extend yourself, Paul, and talk to

someone

at the UI whose gross pay is $25,000 per year, and ask them how easy it is

for them to make ANY contribution to the HSA or to meet the $1150

individual

/ $2300 family deductible.  Then, find a single parent (and there are more

than a few) at UI whose gross pay is $40,000 per year, and ask that parent

how Plan H is working for them.

I'm not quite sure why my ginormous and presumably unearned salary has 
become such a big issue.  I was letting you know that there are at least 
a few situations where people are happily saving money on this plan.  
The amount I put away into the HSA was factored into my resulting $3 
health care payment.

I started working at the U of I making minimum wage, so I know something 
about eating Top Ramen and pancakes to get by.  Not real poverty by any 
means, but not the country club atmosphere you seem to believe I've 
insulated myself with.

In short, it's NOT.  Because they can't AFFORD real insurance like Plan A

or

Plan B where you can see a doctor for an affordable pre-deductible co-pay,

they can't AFFORD to see doctors for things like bronchitis or pneumonia

or

ear aches or strep -- or headaches that may be a symptom of hypertension

--

without becoming unable to afford to EAT or pay their rent or put gas in

the

cars to get to work or pay child care so they can work.  I know several UI

employees who have had to stop taking medication for chronic health

conditions because they can't AFFORD to pay the entire monthly cost of the

medication until they meet the deductible  :-(

Of course the landscape changes if you have dependents, or if you have 
chronic ailments, or if you have other drains on your bank account.  I 
agree with that.

I can also tell you, Paul, that even the single Plan H UI employees I've

showed the costs to would much rather pay $30 per month for that PPO

coverage or $37 per month for traditional coverage than to be stuck with

Plan H.

Perhaps I'm unique then.  I like plan H.  I made it through the first 
year, so I now have enough in my HSA to cover my deductibles.  I like 
the lower ceiling.  I go to the doctor only when I have to anyway, I'm 
covered if something horrible happens, and I pay less than I do for my 
parking permit for it.  I have an account that, gods willing, I can use 
as an extra retirement account someday.  Or as a source of needed cash 
if I do have something tragic happen to me.

It's a damn shame that UI employees are getting totally SCREWED on health

insurance while those in the state insurance pool continue to be offered

real and affordable health insurance.

And, here's another little factoid the UI isn't talking about:  when

people

can't AFFORD to go to the doctor when they are sick, they are far less

likely to take advantage of wellness/preventative care benefits.  So, for

all those UI employees -- and their families -- who were financially

FORCED

into Plan H, the wellness/preventative care benefit most likely won't pay

off over time by helping keep health care costs down as intended.

Paul, I don't have statistics for this year because the UI has become less

and less transparent about the information over the last couple of years,

but I can tell you that for CY08, something like 67% of employees went

with

Plan H, 26% were able to afford Plan A, and only 7% could afford Plan B.

Without taking this as an attack or anything, what does the Plan H 
participant pay compared to the Plan A participant if they take full 
advantage of the HSA?  Just to get the numbers.  If you are putting 
money into the HSA, then you will have some in the account that can be 
used when trying to meet your higher deductible.  I understand that the 
first year is a crap shoot - you may need to pay $X when you have yet 
put that much into the account.

What are the differences in coverage between Plan A and Plan H?  I'm not 
trying to claim that Plan H is better, I simply don't know.

And, to show you just how completely out of touch UI administration is

with

the financial realities for their employees, they thought the reason for

the

"success" of Plan H was because they "actively marketed" it.  <snort>  How

they can remain oblivious to the fact that Plan H is the ONLY coverage

many

employees can afford is a mystery to me, particularly since employees

certainly haven't been quiet about it!

Paul also wrote:

"I don't know if we can get these numbers, but it would be nice to know

what

LCSC pays average per employee compared to the U of I.  That might be

something we can sink our teeth into."

I really don't think that would be helpful because they are fortunate to

be

in the state pool.  What you'd want to see is the average pay of those in

the state pool compared to the average UI employee.

In looking back through all the meeting minutes, it's a CRUEL JOKE that UI

employees have been told at every turn it wouldn't be advantageous for the

UI to participate in the state insurance pool because UI employees are a

healthier pool and we'd see our costs go up were we to join the state

pool.

In fact, when questioned in ***2007*** Lloyd Mues offered the same

explanation yet again and added that the state pool rates wouldn't look as

good come ***July 1, 2008*** as they then looked.  Fortunately for all the

state employees -- and unfortunately for UI employees -- Mues was wrong,

wrong, wrong.

For any who are interested in seeing for themselves the details of the

coverage those in the state pool are offered, check out:

http://adm.idaho.gov/insurance/contracts.htm

For FY10, check out:

http://adm.idaho.gov/insurance/grp/contracts/FY2010/GI_Handbook_Summary_FY20

10_final_CCD.pdf

Current rates are on page 14.

State pool rate increases positively pale in comparison to what my family

has seen with the UI in recent years.  Our family premiums increased 23%

for

FY07 (7/1/2006 - 6/30/2007).  We then had a WHOPPING 69% premium increase

effective 7-1-2007, and we *would* have had another 70% premium increase

just six months later effective 1-1-2008, but that's when we were

financially forced into Plan H.

It's my understanding that we haven't been on the State plan for years, 
if ever.  What would we have paid if we had stayed with Regence?

Paul

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091006/78b41753/attachment-0001.html 