The University of MichiganNews Services
The University Record Online
Updated 11:00 AM April 19, 2004



news briefs


UM employment

police beat
regents round-up
research reporter


Advertise with Record

contact us
meet the staff
contact us
  Faculty perspective
University raising health care costs for most families and retirees

Last year, U-M Provost Paul N. Courant appointed a Committee on Health Insurance Premium Design (CHIPD) "to examine multiple dimensions of the formula for determining what the University and its community pay for health coverage." (Except where noted, all quotations in this article are taken from the report of this committee.) The main impetus for the study was the ballooning costs of health care insurance over the past few years. At U-M, total cost increases from 1999 to 2004 for one employee have ranged from 66 percent (M-Care HMO) to 145 percent (Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan with United of Omaha, subsequently referred to as BCBSM/United). (See Charts 1-a and 1-b. Data for all charts are taken from annual "Open Enrollment" publications and the CHIPD report.)

The report of this committee was issued on Sept. 30, 2003, and most of its recommendations (with a few notable exceptions) will go into force Jan. 1, 2005. These changes include, but are not limited to, transferring more of the cost to faculty and staff, charging higher premiums for dependents than for employees and retirees, and creating a fourth category of premium for employees, i.e. one adult with children. This article describes some of the changes and their effects on individual costs. The full report is available for reading or downloading at

The 10-member committee "was not appointed to be representative of any constituent groups, but rather for their expertise and experience" despite efforts of faculty governance and staff organizations (including organized labor groups) to get a broader representation on an issue that will affect the pocketbooks of all U-M employees. The committee did consider the greater impact on lower-paid employees (see Chart 2), but claimed that tying premium cost to earnings "raises difficult issues of fairness, consistency, and benefits-administration." (It should be noted that in this article insurance costs include both health insurance and prescription drugs, but not co-pays or deductibles.)

The report's overall recommendation was to transfer, on average, 15 percent of the cost of health insurance to employees, phasing it in over three years. The provost did not accept this, only agreeing to "stay at or as close as possible to that percentage." Subsequently, he also announced that the full 15 percent will go into force in January 2005 without a phase-in period. There is a trend of other major employers with health plans to move towards a 30 percent employee payment. Whether the University will adopt this goal is anyone's guess; however, the administration's current plan is for the University to contribute 95 percent of the average of the costs of the two least expensive comprehensive plans for each employee or retiree, but adjust the contribution for dependents to maintain an overall average University contribution of 85 percent. (In 2004 these least expensive plans are M-Care HMO and Care Choices HMO for employees, and M-Care HMO and M-Care POS for retirees.)

A change which will benefit some employees is the introduction of an additional premium tier for families with one adult with children, intermediate in cost between the one-adult and two-adults plans. The total premium costs, employee plus University contribution, for the various tiers are expected to be in the ratios 1.00 (1 adult) : 1.54 (1 adult + children) : 2.00 (2 adults) : 2.82 (2 adults + children). Rates for retirees are more complex because they depend upon whether the covered individuals have Medicare.

Appendix C of the CHIPD report provides tables showing the premiums for the various insurance plans in 2004, along with the employee/retiree contributions and University contributions. In order to illustrate the new plan, the tables also show the corresponding figures for the various plans had the proposed changes been fully implemented this year. (Note that a cost-sharing plan was implemented this year, although not the one proposed by CHIPD.)

Comparisons are instructive; there will be winners and losers. For example, this year a family of two adults with children is paying about $90 per month for either M-Care HMO or Care Choices HMO, the least expensive full-coverage plans. (About half of all covered individuals are enrolled in one of these two plans.) Had the proposed plan been in effect, the cost would have been $135, 50 percent higher. The corresponding figures for BCBSM/United, the most expensive plan, are $500 (actual) and $430 (proposed), 14 percent lower. But in 20031, out of 37,046 individuals covered, only 156 individuals were in this family category. And, under the new plan, some of these might be in the new one-adult-with-children category.

For retirees, the vast majority of whom are Medicare eligible, M-Care HMO and M-Care POS are the least expensive plans, with actual premiums of $14 for a single adult, $28 for two adults and $42 for three adults. The corresponding premiums under the new plan would have been $10 (down 29 percent), $65 (up 132 percent) and $105 (up 150 percent). (These examples illustrate the large difference in cost between a single retiree and a retiree with one or more dependents.) (See Chart 3-a.)

However, the majority of retirees (about 62 percent) are enrolled in BCBSM/United, again, the most expensive plan. These people (assuming they are eligible for Medicare) currently are paying $16 for one person, $33 for two people and $49 for three or more people, not much more than those enrolled in M-Care HMO and M-Care POS. But under the proposed plan, the corresponding estimated premiums for BCBSM/United in 2004 would have been $50 (up 213 percent), $150 (up 355 percent) and $225 (up 359 percent), an especially costly increase for the second and third persons, and a powerful incentive to change to less-expensive plans. (See Chart 3-b.) BCBSM/United is the only practical plan available to retirees who no longer live in the area, or spend significant time away from it, although the CHIPD report does recommend that the administration explore the availability of other portable plans.

While employees can make before-tax health insurance payments through payroll deduction and health care reimbursement accounts, most retirees will have to make after-tax payments and thus, depending on their tax brackets, health insurance premiums will almost certainly cost them at least 18 percent more of their taxable income than it costs active employees. (You need about $118 taxable income to net $100 after paying tax at 15 percent, $133 if you are in the 25 percent bracket.) Also unlike most employees, retirees will not generally have annual salary increases to offset the anticipated continuation of large annual increases in health care insurance, recently estimated at 15 percent a year.

Provost Courant's decision to carry out a broad review of the health care insurance program in response to the rising costs seemed reasonable, and perhaps overdue. Certainly, the recent rapid growth in health care premiums has made a significant impact on the allocation of University resources. However, the total absence of representation by lower and middle income employees (and perhaps retirees) in a study whose primary focus was how to shift costs to employees and retirees was disappointing. While some of the CHIPD recommendations seem to be desirable (e.g., the establishment of a fourth premium tier for families of one adult with children), it is clear that the premium changes represent an effective decrease in income for most employees with families and, especially, for retirees. The general reassignment of costs to individuals and the way this will be carried out must necessarily affect lower-income people with families and retirees with fixed low incomes the hardest. The impact of this change will be especially difficult because the CHIPD's recommendation to phase in the general shift of costs was not accepted by the provost.

1 Numbers for enrollment in the various plans are based on 2003 figures, which are the latest available to the authors.

View accompanying charts>

The Faculty Perspectives page is an outlet for faculty expression provided by the Senate Assembly. The opinions expressed in Faculty Perspectives are the views of individual faculty members and do not represent the official position of U-M nor the faculty governance system. Prospective contributors are invited to contact the Faculty Perspectives Page Committee at Submissions are accepted in electronic form and are subject to review by the committee. Essay lengths are restricted to one full printed page in The University Record, or about 1,500 words.

More Stories