The Faculty Association of Monmouth University

Before President Leahy’s all-employee open call today, we want to update everyone on the status of our healthcare negotiations, as it seems Leahy may want to share decisions he has made, or intends to make, for non-union employees.

Be aware that any changes, or proposed changes, to our health benefits program that he may choose to discuss today have NOT been endorsed by FAMCO. Further, as of this morning, no proposed changes have been endorsed by ANY union on campus.

As of today, we have not been able to reach an agreement with the administration on any changes to our current program, including future costs, that our members have told us they would support. We expect negotiations to continue in good faith.

We also want to remind folks that the administration cannot make any changes to your health benefits, including your monthly premiums, without negotiating those changes with FAMCO.

For those who have yet to have a chance to review FAMCO’s serious concerns with the administration’s current bargaining position, this post will conclude with an updated summary of how the administration’s proposal fails to align with our members’ stated needs as outlined in our FAMCO healthcare platform, and the following image is a updated side-by-side comparison table of the administration’s proposal:

Also, for folks who did not see the front page article in last week’s Outlook covering faculty and staff union concerns about the administration’s proposed healthcare plans, you can read it here:

How Does The Administration’s Proposal Line Up To Our Platform?

Does their proposal lower premiums for all?

No. While some employees may see modest decreases in premiums if they were to switch to new plans, many would pay more, and some would pay MUCH more.

The current premiums have been held steady this year after FAMCO fought hard for a freeze during our last contract negotiations.

Premium freeze agreements have been one small step toward rectifying the unfair cost burden on employees. For example, from 2019-2022, the university’s premium costs decreased by 4% while faculty premium costs increased by 29%.

The reality of a current premium freeze to correct for past overcharging does not mean faculty should expect to pay more in 2023 or 2024 to “pay back” the university for any “gift of absorbing employee costs” in 2022, as might be implied by the administration.

In fact, employee premiums should be further reduced as the university is experiencing significant cost savings this year as a result of several changes in how we administer our health benefits. Those savings, which have not been fully included in the university’s projected 1.4% increase to the total cost of health insurance next year, should continue to be returned to the employees- not the other way around.

Does the proposal allow for plan choice?

The “choice” is in name only. There is NO CHOICE to stay on the current DA at lower premiums. There is NO CHOICE for a comparable DA plan after 2025 even at higher premiums. There is NO CHOICE for a plan with deductible levels that would not be a barrier to access combined with premium costs.

Does their proposal provide out of network benefits for all?

Out of network benefits “for all” is also in name only. The high deductibles and high out-of-pocket maximums make an “out of network benefit” inaccessible to many employees even if it exists in the plan. Adding an out-of-network benefit does not cost the university, but employee premiums are being increased anyway.  Doesn’t add up.

Does their proposal provide for transparency in healthcare benefits decision-making?

No. Their proposal eliminates the healthcare labor-management committee the union has established for over three years.

Does their proposal address the problem of escalating healthcare costs?

As explained above, no. In fact, the administration has admitted in negotiations that they can financially afford the union’s proposals to lower premiums and allow real choice, and they have repeatedly rejected those proposals at the bargaining table. 

—-

*Note: The administration has also indicated that they plan to bid out for new health benefits vendors as early as April 2023 (i.e. the University may move to another network, such as Aetna, or United Healthcare, for example, and/or may move to a new Rx benefits manager). That means that any changes in plan designs accepted now could be up for renegotiation in the year ahead.

The administration and FAMCO have NOT reached an agreement about University health benefits, but the administration is barreling forward anyway. The plans on offer at upcoming “healthcare information sessions” with the HR benefits team DO NOT address the FAMCO Healthcare platform, and the administrations seems to be trying to push past that fact quietly. Presumably, these presentations are intended to divide university employees by isolating non-untoned employees.

Again, FAMCO has NOT AGREED to the these plans that the administration will, presumably, start presenting at upcoming “info sessions.” FAMCO believes ALL workers deserve clear information on their health benefits choices, so we made the table below.

Out-of-Pocket maximums are particularly important to pay attention to because you can still be charged certain fees and copays after meeting deductibles. It’s also important to note that in- and out-of-network maximums are added up separately, so meeting one does not automatically count toward the other.

FAMCO’s proposal is simple: extend the premiums freeze through July 1 and then lower current premiums 10% while keeping the Healthcare LMC active to properly design sound plans for all University workers. The Administration is trying to RUSH THROUGH these new plans.

Under these plans, faculty will pay more for these proposed benefits, both in higher deductibles and higher paycheck contributions, and deductibles compound the problems the less you are paid. These proposed increases more than cancel out recent cost-of-living and salary floor increases FAMCO’s last contract with the administration won.

Deductibles discourage people from seeking care, meaning are likely to not get health issues diagnosed, will miss detecting problems early, or will recover slower from problems that need monitoring and detailed care plans. This could be one way the administration hopes to save themselves money in the long run. However, delaying getting healthcare causes more damage and makes it more expensive, both to faculty and, ultimately, the University as the health insurance provider. Deductibles make specialist care (like mental health services) harder to access because they are often out-of-network, subjecting them to higher deductibles and out-of-network maximums.

These increases will result in a severe pay cut for many. Our health care means more now than ever, and we deserve fair treatment. Why does President Leahy think it is fair to increase the cost of University workers’ and their family’s healthcare?