In addition, William Shea spoke about the inequities of the CHIPD plan, particularly pointing out how lower income employees may be disproportionately burdened with the creation of new family tiers, and further that the University apparently didn’t even study the distribution of employees in tiers. Retiree Robert Green spoke about the impact of the changes on retirees with fixed incomes. Finally, Chelsea Stroh spoke on behalf of SOLE and undergraduates in support of GEO and general respect for University labor.

Hello DeAunderia and RSG,

I want to point out that Provost Courant’s projected figures for the future are extremely unlikely. Using the same figures the Provost is (available at among other places), you see that in 2004, the actual contributions for GSIs, GSRAs, and GSSAs will be:

Univ: $226 Emp: $12 Total: $238

The projections he refers to are for 2004, and show these figures:

Univ: $220 Emp: $5 Total: $225

Somehow, this includes a 7.5% drop in premiums for the same coverage in the same year (they both are based on 2004 premium charges).

Now, consider that (by the University’s hypothesis), premiums are rising at 15% per year. That means that the total in 2005 will actually be around $274. The University will likely pay a larger portion (due to the 5% formula they are using), but the cost to students will undoubtedly be more than the $5 he suggests — probably more in the range of $21/mo. or nearly $250/yr.

If you are interested in hearing more about these figures, I would be happy to discuss them, as I am very familiar with the University’s plans.

Finally, I would like to point out that the changes for _2004_ were made by executive fiat in the Provost’s office. There was no committee that designed this premium charge, and there was no representation in the decision-making process of *any* employee, let alone graduate students. The changes for 2005 were made by a committee that had no graduate student representation whatsoever, and no employee representation below the level of associate professor.

As secretary of GEO, I look forward to working together in the future with RSG to make sure that we share our information and to best represent the interest of graduate students at the University.

yours,

Aron Boros
GEO Secretary
MPP/JD Candidate 2006

===========================================
Letter from RSG
===========================================
Fellow students,

Below you will find a personal letter written to me from Provost Paul Courant. I caught up with him and decided to question him personally about the changes in healthcare and the promised forthcoming clarification of cost for students. Several campus-wide meetings have already taken place to openly discuss this information, but you were not clearly informed because the dates/location/etc. were published in The RECORD – and who really reads that? I told him that he needs to make sure that RSG gets this information first-hand so that students will be sure to be in attendance.

More to come…

On your behalf,
DeAunderia Bryant
RSG President

****************************************************************************

Dear DeAunderia,

Here is the information that you and I talked about the other day.

There are three groups of graduate students who are eligible for health
insurance with a University contribution:

1. Approximately 1655 graduate students who receive
departmentally-sponsored fellowships also receive GradCare. The
premium amounts that they currently pay are zero for single contracts
and two-person contracts and $20 per month ($240 per year) for coverage
for three or more persons. There is no change in practice for this
group scheduled for 2004, and the Committee on Health Insurance Premium
Design (CHIPD) only addressed the circumstances of employees, and hence
made no recommendation for change for this group.

2. Approximately 1550 GSRAs currently subscribe to GradCare, which is
the only insurance for which they are eligible. In 2004, members of
this group will pay $12 a month for single contracts (which are about
3/4 of the cases), $23 per month for two-person contracts (about 18% of
the cases), and $27 per month for three or more persons. If the CHIPD
recommendations are followed, all of these amounts will likely be
somewhat lower in 2005. Single contracts would be approximately $5 a
month ($60 a year); coverage for two adults would cost the employee
about $10 a month ($240 a year) and three or more persons would pay a
total of $25 a month, or $300 a year. (The numbers for 2005 cannot be
known with certainty yet so these amounts are estimates only.)

3. Approximately 1200 GSIs and GSSAs receive health insurance through
their employment with the University. The vast majority of these are
in GradCare (and all of them are eligible for GradCare), and their
circumstances are thus identical to the GSRAs discussed in the previous
paragraph. That is, the maximum employee premium cost for 2005 would
be for family coverage, and would be approximately $300 a year. The
vast majority (78%) of this group are in single coverage and would pay
about $60 a year. There are 14 GSIs who elected Blue Cross/Blue Shield
in 2003. If they do not move to a more economical comprehensive plan,
their costs will rise sharply. But all of the rest of the 4400 plus
graduate students with University insurance coverage face cost
increases that are $300 a year or less, with the vast majority much
less.

I hope that this is helpful. Please feel free to contact me if you
want more information.

The University remains committed to providing excellent insurance
coverage for graduate student employees and fellowship holders, and to
providing the lion’s share of the cost of such coverage. I trust that
we can work together to continue to make this commitment as effective
as possible.

Sincerely yours,

Judge Taylor upheld an arbitrator’s award in a case involving the Lenawee Health Alliance and the registered nurses represented by the Michigan Nurses Association (MNA).

On October 30, 2002, an arbitrator decided in favor of the Michigan Nurses Association saying that Lenawee Health Alliance could not make unilateral change in health insurance benefits. The arbitrator decided that the Alliance
was obligated to notify and negotiate with MNA over changes in the health insurance and that no changes were to be made unless they were negotiated.

The Alliance filed a complaint with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan seeking to vacate the arbitration award. The parties filed competing motions for summary judgment and oral arguments were heard on September 29, 2003.

“The Alliance can not violate the contract by making unilateral changes to the negotiated benefits. The RNs need to know that their employer will follow the binding contract they have agreed to,” said Anita Szczepanski, MNA Labor
Attorney.