OCR Text |
Show Hingkley Journal of Politics 2006 think we should also include a sibling or a parent if they share living expenses," I would say. Universally, those who called said they had no idea he was excluding people, and they would support a more inclusive approach. There are many situations where the household of a single adult includes a long-term platonic roommate, sibling, parent, or domestic partner. Very simply, health benefits are part of employee compensation. Why should the city be willing to spend more on one employee than on another? Our proposition was simple: Let's find a way to allow single employees to add another adult in their household, provided they can demonstrate that there is a pre-existing financial dependence. This would include but not be limited to domestic partners. (It would be necessary to put some parameters on it to prevent abuses, such as, employees adding someone who has an expensive illness as a way to access our insurance whether or not they were really sharing a household). Even though the council approach covered everyone included by his executive order, rather than embrace it, Mayor Anderson derided it.6 "We know we have council members who are anti-gay and lesbian..." "This opens the door for city employees to bring people into their households who have enormous healthcare costs and saying now they should be on the city plan. It's the employees who are going to have that added cost of claims" (Rocky's Benefit Plan, 2005). Undaunted by the Mayor Anderson's criticisms, we formed a subcommittee-J ill Remington Love, Eric Jergensen, and me-to work on the details with representatives of the city's human resources department, the city attorney's office, and with input from our health insurance carrier. In working through the issues, there were a number of practical considerations that needed to be addressed. For example, should there be a limit to the number of adults who can be added to an employee's insurance? What should we do about the parent of an employee, who if elderly, might be an expensive insurance risk? We resolved these issues by allowing each employee one adult designee (to control costs and since, in fairness, a married employee is only allowed one spouse). If their designee is 65 years old or older and eligible for Medicare, the city would contribute $50 a month toward a private "medigap" policy. These decisions helped lower the cost to the point where, on the basis of the number of people projected to be added to the city's health plan, it was more cost-effective than the Anderson plan.7 By the beginning of 2006, the details on the council plan Were worked out. It was simple and easy to understand: An unmarried city employee can, if he or she elects, add an "adult designee" to his or her insurance coverage. (Legal dependents are also included.) Our plan was based on demonstrating economic interdependence-not personal intimacy. (Is it really the City's business with whom one shares a bed? We thought not.) Several tests were established to demonstrate this economic interdependence.8 We also put in place controls to prevent fraud or abuse.9 These controls would guard against the situation warned about by Mayor Anderson where employees could abuse the system by adding people who weren't really part of their household and drive up costs for all employees and the city. A straw-poll of the City Council in January showed unanimous support for this approach. As Jill told the Deseret Morning News at the time: "What we would do is similar to the mayor's plan. If you were single and were living with another adult, you could add that person to the plan even if it was a family member. We're not taking anything away from what the mayor did, just broadening it (City Council Crafts, 2006)." Our subcommittee wrote an opinion piece for the Salt Lake Tribune, which contrasted our plan with the Mayor's: The Mayor's plan goes part of the way, while, at the same time, excluding a number of employees with critical needs. Is it fair to discriminate against these employees? Don't they deserve the same kind of treatment as their married or otherwise partnered coworkers? We think they do. (Buhler, Remington Love and Jergensen, Council's Plan is Fairer, 2006). In January, the Mayor sounded a conciliatory note, saying it would be "real progress" regardless of which city plan went into effect (City Council Crafts, 2006). This was to be shortlived, however. On February 10, the council adopted the ordinance on a 7-0 vote. We became the first legislative body in Utah to extend health benefits to employees' households beyond the traditional family, and thus the first to recognize that there are situations where employees share their household and have interdependence with adults with whom they are not married-whether a partner, sibling, or parent. We resolved by consensus and unanimity that which is often a divisive and contentious issue, bringing together divergent social views 6 Salt Lake City's insurance provider, PEHP, estimated that between 10-22 employees would add a partner under Mayor Anderson's plan, and between 58 and 96 would be added under the Council proposal. In fact, for the first open-enrollment under the City's expanded benefit plan ending May 31, 2006, 29 adult designees were added to employees' insurance. According to the City's Human Resources Division, 25 were for "domestic partners" (19 male-female and 6 same-sex), 4 were for a parent, and 1 was for an adult child. Considerably lower than the estimates given by PEHP when the Council was considering the policy change. 7 Estimated annual costs to the City were $2,864 at the top range per person for the Mayor's plan, and $2,414 at the top of the range for the Council's plan. 8 To qualify the designee must either be eligible as a dependent as determined by the IRS on the employee's federal income tax return or meet three of the following requirements: a) a joint loan obligation, b) a life insurance beneficiary of the employee, c) a power of attorney such as over medical care, d) a signatory on bank accounts, e) joint bank or credit accounts. 9 The Council's ordinance requires adult designees to have shared the household for at least twelve months, the Mayor's executive order required only that partners shared a household for six months. 87 |