[In these minutes: 1. Employee Survey Report, 2. RFI Preliminary Results]

HEALTH PLAN TASK FORCE (HPTF)

MINUTES

THURSDAY, AUGUST 17, 2000
10:00 - 12:00
317 DONHOWE BUILDING

[These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate or Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes represent the view of, nor are they binding on the Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.]

PRESENT: Dick McGehee (Chair), Linda Aaker, Allan Baumgarten, Amos Deinard, Robert Fahnhorst, George Green, Bev Hall, Christopher Hulla, Kathryn Pouliot, Gailon Roen, Harlan Smith, Larry Thompson, Gavin Watt.

REGRETS: Carol Carrier, Keith Dunder, David Hamilton, Ron Kubik, Priscilla Pope, Anna Sommers, Robert Sonkowsky.

ABSENT: Avner Ben-Ner, Susan Brorson, Bart Finzel, Mavis Madden, Sue Mauren.

1. CHAIR'S REPORT

Dick McGehee said that RFI results would be presented by Chris Hulla in the second half of the meeting. HPTF members recently had a presentation from BHCAG, who were aggressive about the University's business and therefore willing to be more flexible. It was noted that there is competition between Health Partners and BHCAG for the University's business.

He then said that he, Carol Carrier, and Robert Fahnhorst met with the State Commissioner. The state does not want the University to separate and has mentioned some new ways for the University to operate within SEGIP. The commissioner also noted that the University could have input into the health insurance process by meeting with DOER in addition to serving on the management committee.

Nothing specific was outlined at this meeting so Carol Carrier will continue to work with the commissioner for details on what exactly this means for the University, what are the limits in terms of plan design, and if separate risk pools are still an option. The state is aware of the University's timeline so hopefully they can provide something relatively soon.

Q: Does the University know where the state is heading for next year yet?

A: No

Q: Is it true that MnSCU is also voicing concerns?

A: Yes they are because some of the issues are the same, such as high administrative costs. It was noted that MnSCU is not in the same situation as the University and therefore cannot separate.

Members then discussed the advantages of the University having its own risk pool and whether or not the state will agree to this option. It is possible that the state is just tempting the University to avoid separation, but that real changes might not be made. In order for the task force to make an informed choice about staying or separating, the state will need to provide information and actual propositions for review.

2. RESULTS OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

Spreadsheets on all employee groups, retirees, graduate students, by employee group, and by campus were distributed and Professor McGehee said that the task today was to determine what information to release and publish on the web.

Members first discussed the data by employee group, making the following comments:

• Data by employee group is mixed, except for faculty
  
• If the data is highly corrupted, should it be published?
  
• People will want to know, so the task force should just acknowledge the crossovers
  
• Distinctions between groups will be lessened because of the crossovers
  
• Data released with a disclaimer
  
• It is possible that most people will not be as interested as task force members

• There is no way to pick out individual responses, even from the small campuses, so privacy is not an issue
  
• All employee groups will be lumped together or individuals might be recognizable
  
• Options are different by campus so this breakdown is important
  
• Coordinate campus needs can be seen only in this breakdown

• Bullets or graphics should be used
  
• People who pay for services, despite first dollar coverage, is higher than expected and should be noted
  
• Information from question 20 regarding outside payments should be included
  
• Distinction between faculty and other groups in terms of plan choice, additional benefits, and satisfaction level should be noted
  
• Campus differences including satisfaction level, additional benefits, and increased 'real' choices for coordinate campuses need to be listed
  
• Statistical significance of the differences should not be included since they do not matter to the general population

3. RFI PROGRESS

Chris Hulla distributed summary sheets on the RFI responses and noted if the University decided to separate from the state, there is more than one provider interested in the University for medical coverage but CAM would need to be built into every plan.

He then went through the responses that were received from the providers:

• Blue Cross/Blue Shield - no prices were quoted since there are still issues to be resolved, plans will cost more if changes are made
  
• Health Partners - eight different plan designs were given along with their costs, it is possible that access to HPMG clinics would only be given if this is the plan selected
  
• Medica - wants to be the sole carrier for a long-term arrangement and will not play in a managed competition model
  
• Mayo - they have no relationship to the University so they were only willing to offer some basic services
  
• UCare - provided responses to all options but there are only two plans that they want to offer

• Themes against care systems were present in all responses
  
• Spreadsheet contains a full list of HMO's so N/A was listed for those which did not respond
  
• Health Partners has told BHCAG that their HPMG staff clinics will only be available for current BHCAG members. Any new companies that join BHCAG will not have this access. Additionally, access for all members might end next year.
  
• It is inconceivable to have a model in which one carriers has all University business
  
• BHCAG is aggressively marketing to the University
  
• BHCAG recently split into a non-profit section which contains all the old BHCAG functions and a for-profit half for marketing BHCAG and contract negotiations

Robert Fahnhorst distributed a draft copy of U and Your Benefits which included an article on the survey results from the task force at the end. A decision was made, regarding the list of additional benefits, to add that the first two benefits were tied in the number of responses received.

In closing, Professor McGehee said that all the research is done. Pending any additional information from the state, the task force has all the information to develop a report and recommendations. It is possible that no one recommendation will be agreed upon and therefore the report will outline various options. This will be the topic at the next meeting.

He then thanked everyone for attending and adjourned the meeting.

Rebecca Hippert
University Senate