The increase in deductible is
actually a good thing, on balance, and many will benefit in
exchange for that extra $100 collectively shared by all of us.
Here's why: the university was benefiting by not having to pay
out on drug claims not filed. Many people were not submitting
their drug claims for reimbursement, simply because of the
paperwork. The "hassle factor" is well-documented in the
literature as a mechanism used by insurance companies and
employers to deter beneficiaries from filing claims, thereby
saving money for the insurers/employers. With direct pay, the
benefit is incurred immediately.
The nature of insurance is that risk is distributed over the
whole pool, including the currently healthy who may benefit
less. However, health is unpredictable, and the moment one needs
care, or in this case, medication, the benefit increases. This
protects people who are too sick to deal with filing. It's
likely to cost the university more because now all eligible
claims will be reimbursed to all beneficiaries.
Medicare costs
over the past 35 years have been remarkably stable at about 4-5%
of Canada's GDP, but
costs, and in particular
prescription drug costs that are not covered under Medicare, are
what is driving total health expenditure (public + private) in
Canada (see attached paper "Neat, Plausible, and Wrong" written
by Canadian Doctors for Medicare, with the disclaimer that I'm
their health policy advisor).
From:
"George Kirczenow"
<kirczeno@sfu.ca>
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:58:57 PM
Subject: Fwd: Bargaining Update 2012-11-30;
Negotiations end without agreement on monetary proposals; off
to arbitration.
Can anyone explain why increasing the health benefits
deductible "from the current $25/family to $125/family
in exchange for the provision of a drug card (no more filling
out those forms to get reimbursement)
and coverage of contraceptives" is supposed to be a good
thing? Are we getting good value
for the $100 per year that we are giving up?
Begin forwarded message:
> From: carl schwarz
<cschwarz@stat.sfu.ca>
> Subject: Bargaining Update 2012-11-30; Negotiations end
without agreement on monetary proposals; off to arbitration.
> Date: December 1, 2012 10:02:59 PM PST
> To:
sfufa-a-z@sfu.ca
>
> Bargaining Update 2012-12-01
>
> Negotiations end without agreement on monetary proposals;
off to arbitration.
>
> SFUFA and the Administration held our last negotiation
session on
> 2012-11-30 but we
> failed to come to an agreement on monetary items. Our
bargaining
> bulletins have clearly shown the need for a fix to our
salary scales.
> We were unable to come to an agreement with the
Administration who
> indicated that they were constrained by PSEC (the Public
Sector
> Employers Council) guidelines.
>
> Consequently, the negotiating team felt that we had no
choice but to
> go to arbitration. As a matter of principle, Arbitrators
are NOT tied
> by governmental guidelines that not legislated.
>
> The arbitration process in our Framework Agreement is
final offer
> selection (FOS). In this mode, both parties put forward
their proposal
> and the arbitrator must select one proposal or the other
in its
> entirety and both parties must accept it. This differs
substantially
> from interest arbitration (IA) where the Arbitrator can
pick and choose
> between items on the two proposals or even come up with a
different
> proposal from those submitted. In final offer selection
(our method),
> it is generally recommended that the issues be few in
number and
> tightly focused.
>
> Consequently, the Administration and SFUFA have agreed on
a number of
> items below that will form part of both party's final
offer to focus the
> difference in our respective proposals.
>
> (a) Agreement in principle of a new rank of Teaching
Professor and
> Professor of Professional Practise.
>
> The rank of Teaching Professor will provide a further
career path for
> our teaching appointments and generally promotion to this
new rank
> will require demonstration of scholarship in pedagogy.
UBC and UVic
> already have this new rank with similar promotion
criteria. Our
> existing policy A30.03 Section B.3
>
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/academic/a30-03.html
already has a
> similar career path for research faculty.
>
> The rank of Professor of Professional Practise will be
modelled on our
> existing Clinical Professor rank (Policy A12.13,
>
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/academic/a12-13.html)
where
> external agencies can fund faculty here at SFU. No SFU
money will be
> involved. The existing cap of no more than 5% of the both
ranks of
> our complement that is in the current policy will remain.
>
> SFUFA and the Admin will strike a committee to make the
necessary
> changes to our policies in time for September 2013.
>
>
> (b) Agreement to examine the need for an across the board
salary
> adjustments for Librarians under Section 9 of our salary
policy
> (A20.01
http://www.sfu.ca/policies/gazette/academic/a20-01.html). A
> joint committee will be struck and report back with
implementation by
> 1 Sept 2013.
>
> By using the features of the existing policy A20.01, some
of the constraints
> imposed by PSEC are not applicable.
>
>
> (c) We were unable to come to agreement on benefit
changes other than
> increasing our deductible from the current $25/family to
$125/family
> in exchange for the provision of a drug card (no more
filling out
> those forms to get reimbursement) and coverage of
contraceptives. We
> hope these changes will take place 1 January 2013.
>
> Notice that the deductible is on a PER YEAR BASIS and not
on an
> prescription basis. Under the new agreement, a member
(and family)
> would have to incur $125 of expenses in a calendar year
before being
> reimbursed for subsequent expenses.
>
> SFUFA will be carefully reviewing our remaining proposals
for changes
> to our benefits
> to see if these are suitable under our final offer
selection arbitration.
>
>
>
> So what happens next...
>
> Both parties will prepare their arbitration briefs and
will exchange
> them between ourselves and send them to our Arbitrator
(Colin Taylor)
> on 21 December. Arbitrator Taylor is also the arbitrator
for UBC and
> UVic who also currently are at an impasse and also headed
for arbitration.
>
> The earliest date for our arbitration hearing will likely
be
> mid-February. At anytime up just before the final ruling,
both parties
> can still negotiate and come to an agreement. SFUFA is
ready at any
> time to resume negotiations if the Administration is
permitted by PSEC
> to address our concerns.
>
> I would like to personally thank the members of our
negotiation team (
> David Broun (Physics), Maureen Fizzell (Business) and
Brian Green
> (SFUFA)) the members of the Bargaining Advisory
Committee (too
> numerous to list) and the SFUFA Executive for their work
and advice
> during the bargaining rounds. Not everyone is off the
hook quite yet,
> as our team will be putting together our Arbitration
Brief in the next
> three weeks!
>
> Believe it not, the whole process will start up again
next September
> as the decision from the Arbitrator will run from
2012-07-01 to
> 2014-06-30. We are essentially in perpetual bargaining
mode!
>
> If you have any questions about the negotiations, please
contact me
> (
cschwarz@stat.sfu.ca). I can also come to talk to groups
(e.g. Departments)
> as needed.
>
>
> Carl Schwarz
>
cschwarz@stat.sfu.ca