Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Employee Health Insurance <br />December 6, 1999 <br />PalZe 3 of 3 <br /> <br />In addition to costing the city more money, it should also be acknowledged that <br />in 1989 and 1994 the City Council did not do anything special or unusual for <br />the employees that had family coverage and who saw substantial increases in <br />their premiums. The family coverage employees today are not necessarily the <br />same ones as in 1989 or 1994, and while no one will feel bad about fellow <br />employees receiving a positive financial benefit from the City Council today, <br />there will, nonetheless, be some employees who will regret that they also <br />didn't get a similar break five or ten years ago. <br /> <br />Finally, a solution of providing an extra $100 or so per month for the family <br />coverage employees may have a morale impact on the employees who have <br />single coverage. By this I mean that for a number of years the single coverage <br />employees have felt like they have made compromises to help the employees <br />with family coverage by accepting higher co pays and even switching plans so <br />that the financial impact on the family coverage employees would be less. In <br />this regard the single coverage employees have consistently "taken less and <br />paid more" and now the City Council will be providing additional help for the <br />family coverage employees and nothing for the single coverage employees. <br />However, this "nothing" may change dramatically if the City Council also <br />decides to pursue a cafeteria benefits program, as this program will have a <br />positive impact on single insurance coverage employees. <br /> <br />I believe the best course of action for the city is to not make any dramatic <br />changes in our contribution to the city insurance packages and also to <br />seriously explore offering cafeteria benefits for all employees. Over the last <br />nine years the city has averaged an increase of $15 in its additional <br />contribution to the employee insurance package. In comparison to the group 6 <br />metro cities, we are slightly low in our per month contribution amount. A mid <br />point type of solution is for the City Council to deviate from this past practice <br />and increase its contribution to $45 for 2000. This would make our <br />contribution amount $400 per month and this would be on par with the group <br />6 metro cities. <br />