Harvard’s Working Mothers Disproportionately Bear the Costs
Nov 30, 2014 18:11:40 GMT -5
frankly, yeswecan, and 1 more like this
Post by kln on Nov 30, 2014 18:11:40 GMT -5
When Harvard announced its new health plan changes for 2015, I was four months pregnant. I am due in mid-January. Harvard’s changes to our health care plans, as they are to take effect on January 1, 2015, will result in me paying at least $1500 out-of-pocket more than I would have under the current plan, countless hours wasted receiving and clarifying conflicting information on costs from Harvard’s Benefits Office, HUGHP, and my provider, and a general disappointment that Harvard is having it’s working mothers disproportionately bear the burden of the health plan changes. If you are a mother, expecting mother, or a woman planning on becoming pregnant, I ask you to join me in writing a letter to Harvard to voice our dismay at the burden the new policy places on us and our families.
Please send an email to klnaeve@gmail.com if you are interested in learning more or getting involved.
Here are the facts:
The numbers
Financially-speaking, labor and delivery coverage will change from being 100% covered under our current plans, to 90% covered under the new plan. In addition to the also newly instituted $250 co-pay, mothers who deliver after January 1, 2015, will pay at a minimum her out-of-pocket maximum of $1500, given the average costs of labor and delivery in Massachusetts. It gets worse: you may have heard from the Benefits Office representatives or during a health care changes webinar that this is the maximum we will pay for labor and delivery-associated costs. This is, however, largely misleading; this is only the case if and only if a child does not need any additional or “out of the ordinary” tests or treatment. For example, if you choose to have your son circumcised, you will now pay an additional $250 co-pay, and 10% co-insurance on any additional costs. A circumcision at my hospital costs $400, which means one would pay an additional $265 on top of the $1500. If my child requires diagnostic tests, or treatment for common complications such as jaundice, I will pay 10% of those costs, up to his individual maximum of $1500. In sum, the rule that the child fits under your individual plan and out-of-pocket maximum, is only true if you and your baby have a 100% “complication-free” labor, delivery and in-patient care. Any additional treatments or tests will result in a new maximum out-of-pocket expense for you and your baby of $3,000.
An unexpected $1,500 - $3,000 out-of-pocket expense, added to 25% of three months’ lost wages over maternity leave, is an unreasonable burden to place on Harvard’s working mothers. A woman earning $70,000 a year, for example, will experience $5,875 - $7,375 in lost wages in the year she has a child while working at Harvard.
Not the circumstances under which we took these jobs
Like most job candidates, when I accepted the offer to work at Harvard, I took into account all of the benefits afforded to employees: reduced gym membership fees, TAP, paid time off, retirement, and health benefits, in addition to salary. As with most non-profit institutions, Harvard must make up for lower salaries (as compared to for-profit institutions) with generous benefits, which are a significant part of the equation. When I took this job, my husband and I planned on getting pregnant at some time during my tenure here, thus, health coverage weighed very heavily in my decision. As with all those who joined Harvard prior to September when the health plan changes were announced, I now have a much less generous benefits package. My salary in 2015, will effectively be reduced by at least $1500 from what I agreed to when I signed my offer letter. One option should be that everyone who became a Harvard employee before September 3, 2014 when the changes were announced, should be grandfathered into their existing policy, and the changes should be applied only to new employees who are aware of the details prior to accepting their positions.
Misleading information and miscommunication from Harvard
.
From the first email we received of the health plan changes on September 3rd from Marilyn Hausammann, the information coming from Harvard’s administration has been both misleading and, at times, incorrect.
From the start, Harvard administration has framed the issue as a benefit to its employees. In the first announcement of the plan, they highlighted the reduction in premiums, without mentioning the specific increases in out-of-pocket expenses. This was highly misleading. As Mary D. Lewis, Harvard professor of history pointed out this month at the FAS meeting, most of our premiums will go down by $10 per month, or $120 per year. Compare $120 to $1500 or more, and the “benefit” of the changes to employees—especially those needing more care, such as pregnant women and families—don’t add up. Furthermore, Harvard administration has said that to keep the same level of coverage as we currently have, premiums would need to increase 3.6%, resulting in $15 more per month for employees (if the current employee-Harvard ratios remain the same). Rather than assuming that those who need more care can afford to pay up to $1500 per year per person for medical expenses, the transparent and inclusive process would have been to offer its employees the option of increasing their premiums by an expected $15 per month (or $180 per year) or risk paying $1500 out-of-pocket per individual per year. I, for one, would have rather faced $180 in added medical expenses, as opposed to $1500 (or more). Insurance is meant to guard us against the risk of the unexpected, not increase it. Marginally higher premiums could have reduced our financial risk, but the new plan greatly increases it, defeating the purpose of insurance.
Lastly, both my health care provider and HUGHP have explained to me that the Benefits Office has been providing misleading information. In its presentation which can be found here on Harvie, the Benefits Office explains that a woman with a “routine pregnancy” who “delivers a healthy baby” will incur NO additional costs in newborn care as these fall under her coverage as an individual, and fit within her deductible and co-insurance. Even in the footnotes, the presentation fails to clearly explain that anything deemed “non-routine” by the insurance company, falls under the baby’s deductible and co-insurance requirements. As it is unclear what is considered “routine” and “non-routine” by our insurance company, and that the definition of these may differ by health care provider, according to my provider, more likely than not, the pediatrician or other practioner will order a test or treatment that the insurance company does not consider “routine”, resulting in a further accrual of costs. This will result not only in higher out-of-pocket expenses than those which the presentation explains, but also the opportunity cost in time spent reviewing (and even disputing) health care costs that appear on the bill received from the hospital. While home with a newborn child, the last thing anyone wants to be doing is dwelling and disputing unanticipated health care costs.
Please send an email to klnaeve@gmail.com if you are interested in learning more or getting involved.
Here are the facts:
The numbers
Financially-speaking, labor and delivery coverage will change from being 100% covered under our current plans, to 90% covered under the new plan. In addition to the also newly instituted $250 co-pay, mothers who deliver after January 1, 2015, will pay at a minimum her out-of-pocket maximum of $1500, given the average costs of labor and delivery in Massachusetts. It gets worse: you may have heard from the Benefits Office representatives or during a health care changes webinar that this is the maximum we will pay for labor and delivery-associated costs. This is, however, largely misleading; this is only the case if and only if a child does not need any additional or “out of the ordinary” tests or treatment. For example, if you choose to have your son circumcised, you will now pay an additional $250 co-pay, and 10% co-insurance on any additional costs. A circumcision at my hospital costs $400, which means one would pay an additional $265 on top of the $1500. If my child requires diagnostic tests, or treatment for common complications such as jaundice, I will pay 10% of those costs, up to his individual maximum of $1500. In sum, the rule that the child fits under your individual plan and out-of-pocket maximum, is only true if you and your baby have a 100% “complication-free” labor, delivery and in-patient care. Any additional treatments or tests will result in a new maximum out-of-pocket expense for you and your baby of $3,000.
An unexpected $1,500 - $3,000 out-of-pocket expense, added to 25% of three months’ lost wages over maternity leave, is an unreasonable burden to place on Harvard’s working mothers. A woman earning $70,000 a year, for example, will experience $5,875 - $7,375 in lost wages in the year she has a child while working at Harvard.
Not the circumstances under which we took these jobs
Like most job candidates, when I accepted the offer to work at Harvard, I took into account all of the benefits afforded to employees: reduced gym membership fees, TAP, paid time off, retirement, and health benefits, in addition to salary. As with most non-profit institutions, Harvard must make up for lower salaries (as compared to for-profit institutions) with generous benefits, which are a significant part of the equation. When I took this job, my husband and I planned on getting pregnant at some time during my tenure here, thus, health coverage weighed very heavily in my decision. As with all those who joined Harvard prior to September when the health plan changes were announced, I now have a much less generous benefits package. My salary in 2015, will effectively be reduced by at least $1500 from what I agreed to when I signed my offer letter. One option should be that everyone who became a Harvard employee before September 3, 2014 when the changes were announced, should be grandfathered into their existing policy, and the changes should be applied only to new employees who are aware of the details prior to accepting their positions.
Misleading information and miscommunication from Harvard
.
From the first email we received of the health plan changes on September 3rd from Marilyn Hausammann, the information coming from Harvard’s administration has been both misleading and, at times, incorrect.
From the start, Harvard administration has framed the issue as a benefit to its employees. In the first announcement of the plan, they highlighted the reduction in premiums, without mentioning the specific increases in out-of-pocket expenses. This was highly misleading. As Mary D. Lewis, Harvard professor of history pointed out this month at the FAS meeting, most of our premiums will go down by $10 per month, or $120 per year. Compare $120 to $1500 or more, and the “benefit” of the changes to employees—especially those needing more care, such as pregnant women and families—don’t add up. Furthermore, Harvard administration has said that to keep the same level of coverage as we currently have, premiums would need to increase 3.6%, resulting in $15 more per month for employees (if the current employee-Harvard ratios remain the same). Rather than assuming that those who need more care can afford to pay up to $1500 per year per person for medical expenses, the transparent and inclusive process would have been to offer its employees the option of increasing their premiums by an expected $15 per month (or $180 per year) or risk paying $1500 out-of-pocket per individual per year. I, for one, would have rather faced $180 in added medical expenses, as opposed to $1500 (or more). Insurance is meant to guard us against the risk of the unexpected, not increase it. Marginally higher premiums could have reduced our financial risk, but the new plan greatly increases it, defeating the purpose of insurance.
Lastly, both my health care provider and HUGHP have explained to me that the Benefits Office has been providing misleading information. In its presentation which can be found here on Harvie, the Benefits Office explains that a woman with a “routine pregnancy” who “delivers a healthy baby” will incur NO additional costs in newborn care as these fall under her coverage as an individual, and fit within her deductible and co-insurance. Even in the footnotes, the presentation fails to clearly explain that anything deemed “non-routine” by the insurance company, falls under the baby’s deductible and co-insurance requirements. As it is unclear what is considered “routine” and “non-routine” by our insurance company, and that the definition of these may differ by health care provider, according to my provider, more likely than not, the pediatrician or other practioner will order a test or treatment that the insurance company does not consider “routine”, resulting in a further accrual of costs. This will result not only in higher out-of-pocket expenses than those which the presentation explains, but also the opportunity cost in time spent reviewing (and even disputing) health care costs that appear on the bill received from the hospital. While home with a newborn child, the last thing anyone wants to be doing is dwelling and disputing unanticipated health care costs.
