Like the rest of the University faculty, University English professor Louise Westling could choose from several health care packages during the last several years. Although Westling always chose a comprehensive package, many University employees chose a basic package or opted out of coverage entirely, receiving the difference in cash.
This year, the Public Employees’ Benefits Board, which decides the health care options available to state employees, restructured its benefits package — scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1 — because of rising health care costs. Those rising prices will cost the University 15 percent more in both 2002 and 2003. Under the new plan, only one option will be available to eligible University employees, instead of the current four, according to University benefits coordinator Helen Stoop.
The plan’s major changes include the elimination of the “opt-out” alternative, which allows employees to exchange health care benefits for a cash equivalent. Also, health care provider Regence BlueCross BlueShield stopped offering its popular basic package, which allowed employees some cash back.
Westling said that although the switch will not affect her coverage, she preferred the old system.
“It’s a crummier deal,” she said, “but it’s not the University’s fault, because the health insurance companies keep raising their rates.”
University Senate President Nathan Tublitz likened the change in system to a change from employee choice to universal health care.
“What the issue boils down to is, ‘What are we willing to pay for universal health coverage?’” he said.
Tublitz said that the current system essentially rewards young, unmarried employees; under the new system, those employees will subsidize people with families.
“I believe we should have universal health coverage, but not at any cost,” he said.
William Baugh, an associate political science professor with a wife and no other dependents, said his health care plan will not change much as a result of the new system, “but it’s going to mean our coverage is more expensive, and we’re not really happy about that.”
Although Tublitz said he is not certain of the overall mood of the faculty about switching to the new system, he has heard and read that “nationwide, it’s about a 50-50 split.”
Ken Hudson, an assistant sociology professor, has no dependents but still chose a health plan so comprehensive that he doesn’t get much cash back. He said the switch “probably won’t affect me much.”
Baugh said rising costs in health care are detracting from one of the few perks of working as a teacher.
“Traditionally in academia, really good benefits offset low salaries,” Baugh said. “Now, with the way things are going, even those really good benefits are starting to not look as good.”
Employers’ costs to provide health care coverage have increased 10.3 percent nationwide in 2001, according to a recent survey of 360 employers by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, The Washington Business Group on Health and the Healthcare Financial Management Association. The costs of providing prescription drug benefits increased 14.6 percent during the same time, according to the survey.
Marty Toohey is a freelance reporter for the Oregon Daily Emerald.