• 1990: Loss of Aware Gold
  
• 1998: Loss of Medica Premier
  
• 2000: Loss of Medica Primary
  
• 2002:???
  

University Risk Pool

Is the University experience significantly different from that of the state?

• 1998 study: within 5% of the state
  
• 1999 study: within 5% of the state
  
• 2000 study: within 5% of the state

Employee Survey Results

• There was a mix-up in that a percentage of employees groups, except for faculty, were sent the wrong survey
  
• 80% is the industry benchmark for satisfaction with benefits

Active Employees Reporting Satisfaction

Employee Survey Results

Priorities When Choosing Medical Plan

Active Employees: Priorities When Choosing Medical Plan

Employee Survey Results

Priorities for Additional Benefits

Active Employees: Priorities for Additional Benefits

University in the Market

Is the University big enough to "self-insure"?

• Yes, 5,000 is comfortable from an actuarial perspective.

• Yes, RFI results were favorable.
  
• Responses from all major players responded, including aggressive responses from HealthPartners, Buyer's Health Care Action Group (BHCAG), & Definity.

Market Forces:

1. Double digit premium increases for the foreseeable future.
   
2. Public distrust of HMOs.
   
3. Employer disillusionment with managed care as a cost containment mechanism.
   
4. Employer discomfort with controlling employee access to providers. Trends:
   • HMO growth stalling.
     
   • PPO revival.
     
   • Renewed interest in MSA and defined contribution.
   Labor Law
   • The University must bargain health benefits with the organized bargaining units. Any changes in the way the University purchases health insurance must be bargained with the unions.
     
   • AFSCME has stated that it wants its University employees to remain with the SEGIP program. The Teamsters agree with AFSCME.
     
   • Related Issue: The Graduate Assistants currently have a separate health insurance program through the University. They may prefer to stay with their current arrangement.
   After discussing the background, Professor McGehee turned to the four recommendations being presented for information today, but for action at the November 16 Faculty Senate meeting.

   Recommendation one concerns a permanent, standing committee to provide employee feedback on employee benefits to the Vice President for Human Resources, whether or not the University stays with or separates from the state.

   Recommendation two recognizes that the University has a different relationship now with the state than it has in the past, partly due to a new commissioner. The state is willing to negotiate changes, listed in the recommendation, for University employees. The question still remains, what can the University actually do to modify health benefits for its employees? An answer to this question still needs more time since any agreement with DOER is subject to legislative approval. The task force has therefore recommended that the University work with the state but keep other options open until a definite answer has been received from the state.

   Recommendation three still needs more details, which will be present in the final report, but the two main issues are diversity in plans and stability of plans.

   Recommendation four was an important enough issue that the task force felt that it should be its own recommendation.

   Q: How many employees would be covered if domestic partner benefits were available?

   A: The University currently pays reimbursement for 22 people, but 175 domestic partners are registered.

   Q: How can the University stop adverse selection between health plans?

   A: One method is risk adjustment to prevent adverse selection. By this method, each health plan bids as if they were going to have the entire pool. Then targets are changed to avoid penalties for the plan with the high risk group. Another method is through the employer contribution to the carriers.

   Q: Currently, 80% of employees have elected to use the restricted access plan which then carries the lowest cost. How much could the University save by issuing a Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) to employees?

   A: Proponents of MSA indicate that there are savings since employees are essentially spending their own money and therefore tend to save funds for future medical costs. MSA does not lower medical costs, although it does shift costs from the employer to the employee.

   Q: What will happen to coverage during sabbaticals or leaves in the proposed plans?

   A: The University will need to look at this plan design question since it was a big question at the beginning of this process.

   6. PRESIDENT'S REPORT

   NONE

   7. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT

   Q: Is a tuition benefit for children of faculty and staff still being considered?

   A: This issue makes sense, but until the University finds a way to fund salary increases and health benefits, it should be considered a dead issue.

   8. OLD BUSINESS
   NONE

   9. NEW BUSINESS

   NONE

   10. ADJOURNMENT

   The meeting was adjourned at 3:58 p.m.

   Rebecca Hippert
   Abstractor

   ---

   APPENDIX A

   Richard J. Epley
   1942 - 2000

   Dr. Richard J. Epley, professor and extension animal scientist for meats in the Departments of Animal Science and Food Science & Nutrition, passed away on September 9, 2000, at age 58. During his career at the University of Minnesota, Dick was a well-known national authority on meat and meat products.

   A native of Pana, Ill., he received degrees from the University of Illinois (B.S.) and the University of Missouri (M.S. and Ph.D.). He became a faculty member at the University of Minnesota in 1970.

   In Animal Science, Dick served as a coach for 17 meat judging teams and co-coached 14 meat animal evaluation teams in regional and national contests. He taught the meat judging and meat animal evaluation courses for many years and was a highly rated instructor.

   He also worked with 4-H, FFA, and student organizations in a variety of roles and gave national leadership to a number of programs related to youth and his other professional interests.

   As a result of his on-campus teaching and his meat extension roles across the state, he was known by many alumni and constituents of the Department of Animal Science.

   Since the mid-1980s, he worked closely with Dave Plath in the management of abbatoir and meat operations in the Andrew Boss Laboratory. This facility not only serves programs within the Department, but others across campus that require fresh animal tissues.

   In addition, Dick served as superintendent of the meats display and carcass shows at the Minnesota State Fair for many years.

   His extension education programs addressed issues important to producers, processors, retailers, consumers, nutritionists, food regulators, 4-H and FFA members. Thus, his "classroom" was frequently in the workplace where people had requested his assistance.

   He regularly translated technical articles for all these groups into a wide variety of lay or industry publications. He also conducted many workshops as well as numerous radio and TV programs. In addition, Dick responded to frequent phone calls from individuals seeking information about meat.

   His more than 2,200 educational programs and articles improved meat production and processing practices, led to safer and more nutritional products, and informed consumers about meat selection, storage and preparation.

   His research program was oriented to understanding practical problems related to the meat industry and its products. He served on editorial boards for numerous journals of professional societies.

   In 1994, he established and, until recently, managed a computer listserve that allows fellow educators to rapidly exchange information and ask questions of each other about meat-related issues. This active listserve now assists more than 110 professional educators around the world.

   Among Dick's numerous awards were regional and national professional society awards for his extension programs, including the American Meat Science Association Meat Extension Award in 1984. He received special awards from student groups, the Minnesota Association of Meat Processors, Minnesota State FFA and 4-H, and a team award from the Minnesota Extension Service.

   The greatest legacy that he leaves is all the students, producers, processors, retailers, and consumers who benefited from his programs on meat.

   According to Eugene Allen, a close friend and colleague, "It is difficult to imagine any consumer of meat products in Minnesota who has not been impacted by one or more of his educational efforts that spanned from production to consumption of meat products. He was, in the tradition of land grant universities, a professor who conducted and translated research to address real-world issues about topics he knew very well and taught with great enthusiasm."

   In his spare time, Dick was an avid, single-handicap golfer and belonged to the Midland Hills Country Club. He enjoyed spending time with his family and vacationing with friends and was known as one who enjoyed a good debate with his associates.

   Dick Epley's close colleagues will always remember him for his integrity, the organized manner in which he did his work, his ability to question and debate an issue, and for the significant contributions he made to programs of Animal Science, Food Science and Nutrition, University Extension, and COAFES.

   He is survived by his spouse, Joan, of Roseville, four brothers, one sister and numerous nieces and nephews outside of Minnesota.