>Date: Tue, 4 Jan 1994 19:06-EST >From: Scott.Safier@ISL1.RI.CMU.EDU >Subject: Information on UPenn benefits several messages I got from the PennInfo service --- For Immediate Release December 10, 1993 Contact: Carol Farnsworth (215) 898-8721 PENN TRUSTEES APPROVE MEASURE TO EXTEND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO SAME-SEX DOMESTIC PARTNERS ============================================================================== PHILADELPHIA, PA. -- The Executive Committee of the University of Pennsylvania's Board of Trustees today approved the extension of full benefits to the domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees at Penn and has authorized its Division of Human Resources to develop procedures in support of the new policy. The measure would cover employees with same-sex partners who can demonstrate several criteria for eligibility including a committed relationship of indefinite duration and financial responsibility for each other. The resolution will make available all health, retirement and tuition benefits currently extended to spouses and children of married employees. "We welcome this decision as part of the University's long-term commitment to maintaining a strategically competitive benefits package," said William Holland, Penn's Vice President for Human Resources. "We anticipate enrollment of domestic partners during the annual open enrollment in April with benefits effective in May, pending final agreements with our insurance carriers." In its decision to extend employee benefits to same-sex domestic partners, the University joins a growing number of higher education institutions including the University of Chicago, Harvard University, Stanford University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, that have approved similar measures. Large corporations have also begun to follow this trend. AT&T, Sears and Apple Computers Inc. have approved domestic partners benefits. The decision follows a report issued in October by a University task force that evaluated the feasibility of implementing the new policy. The eight-member task force, lead by law professor Stephen B. Burbank, found that the University's equal opportunity and affirmative action policies, which forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, support extension of benefits to gay and lesbian couples. "The new policy reinforces Penn's status as an open and diverse community," Holland said. In addition to demonstration of financial dependency, the new policy also requires documentation that partners: * reside together * are not married * are at least 18 years of age * are not related by blood to a degree that would bar marriage in their state of residence. The new policy does not include any special waiting period for initial eligibility but does require notice of termination of the partnership. A 12- month waiting period would be required before an employee would be eligible to register a new domestic partner. ***** --- Domestic Partner Benefits . . . Staff Service ============================================= Domestic Partners: Recommendations of the Task Force on Benefits for Domestic Partners received unanimous approval both from the University Council at its December 8 meeting, and the Executive Committee of the Trustees on December 10. Following is the December 10 motion: Resolution on the Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners Intention: In March, 1993, the Faculty Senate leaders, the Provost and the President, charged a Task Force on Benefits for Domestic Partners consisting of trustees, faculty and staff, "to consider the proposition that the University should provide to domestic partners of Penn employees the same benefits provided to spouses of employees." On October 19, 1993, the Task Force published "For Comment" in Almanac its preliminary report in which it recommended that the University accord benefits and privileges to the same-sex domestic partners of employees and their children that are comparable to the benefits accorded to spouses and their children. The President, after reviewing the comments and consulting with the Faculty Senate Leaders, the Provost, and the University Council, accepts the recommendation of the Task Force, and hereby requests that the trustees authorize the Vice President for Human Resources and other appropriate University officers to make such changes in the University's benefits plans and policies as are necessary to implement the recommendation of the Task Force. Resolved, that the Vice-President for Human Resources and other appropriate University officers are hereby authorized to adopt such amendments to University benefits plans and such changes in University policies as are necessary to extend to the same-sex domestic partners of employees and their children benefits which are comparable to those accorded to spouses and their children; and Further resolved, that the Vice-President for Human Resources or other appropriate University officers are hereby authorized to adopt administrative mechanisms for implementing the aforementioned changes in University benefit plans and policies and to take such other action as may in their judgment be necessary or desirable to accomplish the purposes of this resolution. At Council, an amendment had been proposed to strike the reference to "same sex," but it was withdrawn after Dr. Ann Matter of the Task Force that opposite-sex couples are already covered under Pennsyl-vania common law. Staff Service: At the December 8 meeting, Council also approved unanimously a Steering Com-mittee motion that University Governance is a responsibility of all members of the community. This includes staff as well as faculty, administration and students. Service on a University Council committee should be considered an integral part of the responsibility of all employees. Interim President Claire Fagin accepted the resolution and asked Human Resources Vice President William Holland to follow through on any steps needed to enable staff to attend meetings of Council committees. . ---- Attachment to the Domestic Partners Report from the Division of Human Resources --------------------------------------------------------------------- Statement on Domestic Partner Benefits ====================================== In cooperation with the Task Force on Benefits for Domestic Partners, the Division of Human Resources has sought to obtain information on domestic partner benefits from a variety of sources to aid members of the task force in coming to a clear understanding of the issues, including the cost implications that extending benefits to domestic partners might have for the University. The extension of benefits to domestic partners is a relatively new aspect of employee benefit packages. As a result, information on the issue was primarily gathered directly by surveying employers currently offering domestic partners benefits. As one would expect, their experience with the issues and associated costs is currently limited. Consequently, conclusions based on this experience represent "best guess" estimates which undoubtedly will be influenced as more experience is gained. An additional source of information was a paper drafted by Hewitt Associates. Our inquiries have yielded the following information. * Several municipalities in California, a few private sector employers and universities offer benefits to domestic partners of employees. * Employers have indicated that the average costs of medical insurance for domestic partners is approximately the same as the average cost of medical insurance for spouses. Generally, any added cost experienced by employers seems to result from adding individuals to the employers' medical plans and not from a higher incidence of catastrophic diseases. * Employers typically have specific concerns regarding AIDS when investigating the possibility of offering domestic partner benefits: 1) The belief that the cost of treating AIDS is prohibitive. 2) Employees would be inclined to seek medical coverage for a domestic partner with AIDS. Experience of employers, to date, has indicated that the above concerns have not been realized. The cost of treating AIDS is no more significant than other serious illnesses that are more common. There is also no evidence that employees with domestic partners are more inclined to seek coverage for partners with AIDS. * Overall, employers have indicated that the ratio of employees choosing coverage for their domestic partners in comparison to the number of benefits eligible employees is small. Employers offering domestic partner benefits to same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partners have experienced greater utilization of the benefits by opposite sex partners. It can be concluded, with the limited information available, that the cost of providing domestic partners and their dependent children with medical insurance is directly related to the number of partners and children insured. While it is not possible to accurately predict the number of Penn employees who would choose domestic partner coverage should it be offered, it seems reasonable to assume that Penn's experience in the area of medical insurance would be similar to that of other employers. With respect to tuition benefits for dependent children, the cost of providing the benefit is again related to the number of dependent children using the benefit. Since few employers offer tuition benefits for dependent children comparable to Penn's benefit, there is no basis of comparison to determine usage trends. Penn's tuition benefit is generous. It is possible that employees who would not insure a partner and his/her children through Penn's medical benefits would use the tuition benefit for a partner's dependent children. The potential exists for greater utilization of the tuition benefit than other more standard benefits. It is reasonable to conclude from the available information that the cost of extending medical coverage to domestic partners and their dependent children would not be burdensome. If usage trends of the tuition benefit parallel the usage trends of medical coverage experienced by other employers, the same conclusion can be drawn regarding the extension of tuition benefits. It must be noted that such a conditional conclusion is potentially unfounded and can only be tested with experience. The Division of Human Resources recognizes that there is a cost impact in extending benefits to same-sex domestic partners. In extending those benefits there is a need for clarity concerning precisely who is eligible to receive benefits and under what circumstances. - R. William Holland, Vice President for Human Resources --- University of Pennsylvania Division of Human Resources ====================================================== *********************************************** Estimated Annual Net Cost Increase Projections For Same-Sex Domestic Partners Benefits *********************************************** Last week the report of the Task Force on Domestic Partner Benefits appeared in Almanac, with an invitation to send comments to President Fagin by November 19. The Division of Human Resources has now released the following projections of costs associated with the benefits proposed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Benefits Category* and Utilization Range of Potential Additional University % Increase Eligible Population: University Cost ($1000s) Of U. Cost 80 400 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Health: Eligible Employees Enrolling % # # Medical 10% 8 40 18.00 90.00 .07% .37% 20% 16 80 36.00 180.00 .15% .74% 50% 40 200 90.00 450.00 .37% 1.90% Dental 10% 8 40 1.60 8.00 .06% .29% 20% 16 80 3.20 16.00 .12% .58% 50% 40 200 8.00 40.00 .29% 1.50% NOTES: * Estimated number of single employees 4,000. * Projections based on the assumption that 2% (80 employees) to 10% (400 employees) of single employees will be eligible for benefits.* Estimated number of single employees 4,000. Tuition for Dependent Children and Spouses % # # 10% 8 40 14.20 72.20 .13% .66% 20% 16 80 28.50 144.40 .26% 1.30% 50% 40 200 72.20 359.90 .66% 3.30% * Estimated number of single employees 4,000. * Projections based on the assumption that 2% (80 employees) to 10% (400 employees) of single employees will be eligible for benefits. * Per capita cost. * Dependent life fully paid by the employee. Retirement requires an actuarial study. Source: Office of Human Resources/Benefits .