>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
.