|
1789
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
REPORT FROM THE FACULTY WELFARE COMMITTEE
BENEFIT PROGRAM SURVEY 2001
Elizabeth Richmond-Garza (associate professor,
English) submitted the following report on behalf of the Faculty Welfare
Committee. The committee will present the report to the Faculty Council
at its meeting on March 18, 2002.
<signed>
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty
REPORT FROM THE FACULTY WELFARE COMMITTEE
BENEFIT PROGRAM SURVEY 2001
Purpose of Survey: To compare the
relative satisfaction that all faculty, staff, and graduate assistants
have with their current UT health benefits.
The survey was designed to collect data from all categories of UT employees.
Analysis of survey responses provided insight into UT employeesÍ satisfaction
with available health benefits, and their priorities for health plan
features. Satisfaction and priority data were compared across employee
constituencies (faculty, staff, and graduate students). The Faculty
Welfare Committee would like to thank the thousands of UT faculty, staff,
and graduates assistants who responded. The substantial assistance received
from the UT Office of the PresidentÍs, Associate VP Kyle Cavanaugh and
his Office of Human Resources colleagues, UT System official Dan Stewart,
and particularly the benefits project group of Professor Mark Alpert
from his Special Projects in Marketing class, Marketing 372, especially
Mike Adams, Seth Hachmeister, Farhan Iftikhar, Kim Tills and Steven
Fargo, are gratefully acknowledged.
Sample: There were 15,000 surveys distributed to UT employees
through campus mail and website. A total of 5118 (34%) were completed,
2973 (58%) by hard copy and 2145 (42%) by website.
The sample included 3623 (71%) staff, 865 (17%) faculty, and 630 (12%)
graduate student participants. The replies from each constituency represent
a response rate of 41.43% by the staff, 35.84 % by the faculty and 15.81%
by the graduate student participants. Other demographic data included
gender, age, and health plan variables. The majority of the sample were
female (57.6%), homeowners (64.4%), and in the 30 to 49 year age range
(49.6%). There were 29.5% in the 50 to 65 year age range, 2.3% over
65 years, and 18.6% under 30 years. Therefore, 31.8% of the respondents
represent the age group that traditionally has a much higher need for
health care benefits.
Findings: At present, The University of Texas system offers two
health care plan choices to employees. Employees are enrolled in UT
Select (52%) or Humana HMO (48%). The plans provide health care coverage
to employees only (60%), employees and spouses (13%), employees and
families (14%), and employees and children (13%). Of the optional benefits
offered to employees, 77% have Dental benefits, 51% have Accidental
Death and Dismemberment benefits, 50% have Long-term Disability benefits,
50% have Vision benefits, and 17% have Long-term Care benefits.
Satisfaction with Health Plan & Optional Benefits
Satisfaction was measured with a scale of 1 (low satisfaction) to 3
(high satisfaction). The table below lists the mean satisfaction scores
by health plan. Keep in mind that only individuals who were enrolled
in the optional health benefits indicated their satisfaction with the
benefit.
1790
It is also worth mentioning that in spite
of the downward bias of survey responses to benefits services, and the
recent changes in the UT plans, overall satisfaction scores were fairly
good. The key is to use this as a baseline for similarly-conducted surveys,
to detect trends up or down.
| |
Humana
HMO |
UT
Select |
| Question |
Respondents |
Mean |
Respondents |
Mean |
| Choice of plan |
2387
|
2.22
|
2569
|
2.25
|
| Choice of providers |
2372
|
2.27
|
2551
|
2.34
|
| Provider location |
2347
|
2.38
|
2487
|
2.46
|
| Prescription Drugs |
2294
|
2.16
|
2451
|
2.28
|
| Dental benefit |
2072
|
2.24
|
2082
|
2.29
|
| Vision benefit |
1477
|
2.34
|
1432
|
2.35
|
| Long-term Disability |
1291
|
2.27
|
1158
|
2.32
|
| Personal Accident |
1363
|
2.29
|
1158
|
2.34
|
| Employee Life |
1662
|
2.34
|
1490
|
2.37
|
| Dependent Life |
969
|
2.27
|
638
|
2.27
|
| Long-term Care |
650
|
2.17
|
623
|
2.23
|
In general, the plans were rated similarity
in satisfaction scores.
Satisfaction with Optional Benefits by Employee Category
The table below lists the mean satisfaction scores for each of the optional
benefits and sorted by employee category.
| |
Faculty |
Staff |
Graduate
Student |
| Optional benefit |
N |
Mean |
N |
Mean |
N |
Mean |
| Dental benefit |
709
|
2.26
|
3065
|
2.25
|
386
|
2.36
|
| Vision benefit |
483
|
2.39
|
2163
|
2.33
|
269
|
2.35
|
| Long-term Disability |
450
|
2.32
|
1902
|
2.3
|
108
|
2.2
|
| Personal Accident |
400
|
2.32
|
1990
|
2.32
|
144
|
2.27
|
| Employee Life |
541
|
2.4
|
2433
|
2.35
|
541
|
2.3
|
| Dependent Life |
274
|
2.28
|
1267
|
2.27
|
71
|
2.3
|
| Long-term Care |
246
|
2.22
|
959
|
2.2
|
67
|
2.22
|
Ranking of Possible Health Plan Features
Eight features were identified by the committee in consultation with
the Office of Human Resources. Respondents were asked to prioritize
the eight features by indicating a ranking of highest (1) to lowest
(8) priority. The table below is the overall ranking of the eight features
for the entire sample.
|
Rank
|
Feature |
Mean
|
|
1
|
Keep out-of-pocket
costs low |
3.13
|
|
2
|
Keep the prescription
co-pay as low as possible |
3.66
|
|
3
|
Maintain the
lowest possible employee premium contribution |
4.01
|
|
4
|
Keep preventive
care (physical exams, immunizations) out-of-pocket costs as low
as possible |
4.26
|
|
5
|
Keep the deductible
as low as possible |
4.36
|
|
6
|
Keep in-patient
(hospitalization) out-of-pocket costs as low as possible |
4.7
|
|
7
|
Do not add a
lifetime maximum in the health care plan (current plan does not
have one) |
5.67
|
|
8
|
Increase the
number of physicians available to me |
5.85
|
1791
Ranking of Possible Health Plan
Features by Employee Category
The ranking data was sorted by employee category and is provided
in the table below.
| |
Faculty |
Staff |
Graduate
Student |
| Feature |
Rank |
Mean |
Rank |
Mean |
Rank |
Mean |
| Low out-of-pocket
costs |
1
|
3.54
|
1
|
3.05
|
1
|
2.92
|
| Low prescription
co-pay |
2
|
4.07
|
2
|
3.55
|
2
|
3.6
|
| Lowest employee
premium contribution |
3
|
4.12
|
3
|
3.87
|
5
|
4.42
|
| Low preventive
care out-of-pocket costs |
4
|
4.32
|
4
|
4.29
|
3
|
3.88
|
| Lowest deductible |
7
|
4.49
|
5
|
4.39
|
4
|
3.93
|
| Low in-patient
costs |
5
|
4.46
|
6
|
4.72
|
6
|
4.73
|
| No lifetime
max |
6
|
4.48
|
7
|
5.76
|
8
|
6.46
|
| Increase physicians
available |
8
|
5.51
|
8
|
5.9
|
7
|
5.66
|
There is little difference between
the ranked priorities of faculty, staff, and graduate assistants.
Differences in mean scores did occur, and should be evaluated to
discern that graduate assistant and staff preferences to keep costs
as low as possible seemed greater, on an absolute scale than that
of the faculty.1
Exploratory Question
An exploratory question was included in the survey: If the UT System
were allowed to offer Domestic Partner Benefits, would employees
favor it? Overwhelmingly, the employees (n = 4836 responded to question)
support this benefit with 75% responding "yes" or "definitely yes."
Recommendations:
- The University of Texas at Austin, Faculty Welfare
Committee should use the information that is provided in this report
to assist them in finding a health plan that is satisfactory to all
UT employees.
- The overall ranking of health plan features should
be used to guide decision-making during negotiations with health care
providers. The overall rankings are as follows:
| 1) |
Keep out-of-pocket costs low |
| 2) |
Keep the prescription co-pay as low as possible |
| 3) |
Maintain the lowest possible employee premium
contributions |
| 4) |
Keep preventive care (physical exams/immunizations)
out-of-pocket costs as low as possible |
| 5) |
Keep the deductible as low as possible |
| 6) |
Keep in-patient (hospitalization) out-of-pocket
costs as low as possible |
| 7) |
Do not add a lifetime maximum in the health
care plan (current plan does not have one) |
| 8) |
Increase the number of physicians available
to me |
- Try to avoid switching health plans every year. Once
a health plan is selected it should be continued.
- There are many employees that do not fully understand
the current health plan that they are enrolled in. Providing better
information or informational meetings would improve the knowledge of
each health plan and could create a more positive attitude towards the
benefits of each plan.
- Long-Term care has the lowest level of satisfaction.
An improvement in this category would improve the overall satisfaction
of the employees.
- Everyone has different attitudes towards health plans.
There are many employees who are dissatisfied because the two current
health plans do not cover what they are interested in. If it is possible
The University of Texas should provide additional health plans from
which employees may choose. The
1 Paragraph added on March 6, 2002.
1792
plans selected should address different preferences
regarding the trade-off between the cost to employee and the flexibility
and physician selection provided by the plan.
- Satisfaction surveys should be conducted on an annual
basis in the future to evaluate satisfaction and to obtain employee
input into desired health benefits. We recommend that a statistical
sample be used for efficiency in future surveys. The last benefits survey
was conducted in 1993 and cannot serve as a good basis for comparison
with the 2001 survey.
- The Committee recommends the addition of exploratory
questions pertaining to Mental Health Care coverage to determine employee
satisfaction with this feature of the health plans.
- When the Health Plans remain the same from one year
to the next, future surveys should include questions about problems
with the health plans and evaluate how well plan administrators have
responded to the problems.
This report was posted on the Faculty Council web site
on March 5, 2002. Paper copies are available on request from the Office
of the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.
|
