|
Post by seeingcrimson on Feb 10, 2015 17:07:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rolando on Feb 10, 2015 17:14:24 GMT -5
So for the sake for $2.5 million Harvard has alienated all their employees? Harvard blows that on a daily bases. They claim that the average additional cost to an employee is $230? One procedure (xray, lab work, ultrasound) and you have blown through that $230. That cannot be even close to be accurate. I'm expecting this to cost me about $1500 a year at least and we have zero medical issues. An ultrasound this am for my wife just to make sure there is nothing wrong will exceed this $230 without any question. Those with real medical issues will be in the $3000-$4500 a year. The only way this works if there are lots of people without any medical problems, ever.
|
|
|
Post by Question on Feb 11, 2015 7:02:43 GMT -5
Can anyone explain what the "Reimbursement Program Payouts" cited at $1.5m on page 6 are? I must have missed that.
|
|
|
Post by yeswecan on Feb 19, 2015 20:08:42 GMT -5
I think that the estimated savings under the "reimbursement" umbrella are these two projections: 1) $1.1 mill payout to reimburse co-insurance charges to those in the under 70K FTE salary level, and those in the 70-95K range, because these groups have lower co-insurance maxes than the $1500 individual/$4500 family co-insurance maxes. I don't think this is one of two "*new* financial protection programs" as described in the sheet - I think this tiering existed from the get-go. 2) The remaining .4 mill in projected savings is the "transitional" financial protection program, which is the concession Drew Faust made in response to the FAS faculty outcry - the program (which doesn't exist yet as far as I can see on the Harvie page) - that reimburses folks who spend more than 3% of their Harvard salary in out of pocket expenses.
(I wonder if that $1.5 million includes an allowance for the non-responders - surely, there will be Harvard employees in those salary tiers who will exceed those maxima by $50 or $100 and choose not to take the time to pursue the paperwork necessary to get reimbursed. If some eligible employees don't apply for reimbursement, the outlay of reimbursements would be lower. More savings for Harvard as the development offices rake in Campaign dollars)
It seems wrong to include the savings from the new prescription drug contract in this chart in a way that splits the savings between employer and employees -the impact on employees is invisible if the Rx co-pays stay the same. Unless there is something I am missing about the changes to the prescription drug program.
That $230 average cost figure is a made-up, meaningless number. New parents and the sick will bear the load - it will not be averaged.
|
|
|
Post by guest 2 on Feb 20, 2015 8:17:39 GMT -5
agree that the $230 is meaningless in this context, but would that be the amount more in premiums per employees would pay if this change was rolled back?
|
|