|
|
Post by frankly on Nov 14, 2014 16:52:29 GMT -5
So, the Crimson reports today that President Drew Faust wrote to FAS faculty late Thursday, responding to the FAS faculty motion calling for an undoing of the health plan changes - www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/11/14/faust-health-benefits-reaction/ Does anyone know where we can see the text of the letter on the web? I haven't found it... Her letter reportedly offers some new data about health care costs but still pretty vague. Also talks about a new "fund" that will provide some financial support to affected employees who have out-of-pocket cost greater than 3% of their pay, and promises the University Benefits Committee will hold several Town Hall events. Sounds to me like much too little and way too late. What do others think? |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 17, 2014 6:12:17 GMT -5
Hi Frankly, the letter is available at harvie.harvard.edu/system/files/Forms/Benefits/Medical_and_Dental/PresidentFaust_LetterToFASFaculty.pdf In my opinion, the fund is a welcome step but does not really address the substance of the issues that the FAS Faculty raised in their vote. Also, the notion the town hall sessions with the benefits committee will generate fair and open discussion seems highly doubtful. Also, the financial statistics offered still seem forced and the dismissive manner in which that paragraph begins is offensive and arguably arrogant. The more recent growth numbers provided (expense growth of 6.5% compared to revenue growth of 3.2%) conveniently starts its calculations in the year that the financial crash occurred. It also spans years during which our investment returns have lagged behind our peers. I'd like to see those numbers from the past 3 years. It will be interesting to see what response will be forthcoming from the faculty. |
|
|
|
Post by truthseeker on Nov 18, 2014 13:27:22 GMT -5
Drew Faust's letter contains selective data that are not representative of the facts. She chooses the period 2008-2014 for the comparison between benefits and salaries. In that time period, benefits increased much more than salaries. This is the basis for her statement that benefits are increasing at almost twice the rate as salaries. But if she had chosen 2009, exactly the opposite case could have been made. 2009-2014 increase was 3% per year for benefits, and 4% per year for salaries. Benefits/Salaries dropped from 33.8% TO 32.3%. Using 2006, salaries were up 4.8% per year, and benefits 5.2% per year, very similar. Therefore all the following statements in her letter are not justifiable, based on what has occurred during the last 8 years. The data are misrepresented.
"Let me begin by emphasizing that one reality at the heart of any consideration of health care benefits is clearly established and should not be generating the disagreement and controversy we have seen over the past several weeks. "
"Over time a greater proportion of these compensation dollars has been devoted to health benefits cost increases rather than to wages. "
"Containing health benefits costs is critical both to a compensation system that balances wages and benefits and to a university budget that supports the priorities for teaching and research that are our fundamental purpose."
"Containing health benefits costs is critical both to a compensation system that balances wages and benefits and to a university budget that supports the priorities for teaching and research that are our fundamental purpose."
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Nov 21, 2014 9:43:33 GMT -5
Harvard Magazine reports on the administration's response to criticisms of the health plan changes: harvardmagazine.com/2014/11/president-faust-on-harvard-health-benefits-changes Exceedingly politely as usual, the Magazine piece raises questions about President Faust's assertions on health care cost, saying that "the data, as always, are subject to further refinement." The Magazine then suggests some refinements that would be useful, including information about per capita medical costs as opposed to aggregate costs and examination of other budget line items that have increased at about the same rate as health care - in other words, it's not clear that there is an alarming health cost trend. The article also includes a list of all (?) members of the University Benefits Committee, which I don't think has been published elsewhere. Must have taken some digging. |
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Nov 23, 2014 9:28:25 GMT -5
One of the really interesting things in the Harvard Magazine piece is the description of the UBC's work as practical rather than academic. Rather than being charged to freely identify and recommend changes that would be best from a variety of perspectives they were instead apparently given "targets" and "University proposals" (see below from the article). This would suggest that the Provost had already decided what the end-point would be and that the committee was simply defining the way to get there. In addition, the evolving membership of the committee removed dissenting voices making the outcome all but a forgone conclusion. For the Provost to subsequently claim that all he did was follow and implement the recommendations of the committee is deeply concerning.
"According to some current and former members, their deliberations have been practical, not academic: they were shaped by University proposals for benefit designs (for example, for retiree healthcare, or possible consolidation of health-plan offerings), or for reaching a financial target, and then evaluating diverse courses of action to achieve it. Making the members, the committee’s role, and the mode of action more transparent may prove useful, if not entirely free of controversy."
|
|
