TOTAL COMPENSATION STUDY

Transcription

1 University TOTAL COMPENSATION STUDY Phase II Findings Benefits Benchmarking Report June 21, 2012 Copyright 2012 by The Segal Group, Inc., parent of The Segal Company and its Sibson Consulting Division. All Rights Reserved

2 Table of Contents Introduction and Executive Summary Health and Retirement Programs Tuition Benefits Group Term Life Time Off and Leave Non-Traditional Benefits Copyright 2012 by The Segal Group, Inc., parent of The Segal Company and its Sibson Consulting Division. All Rights Reserved

3 Introduction University () has partnered with Sibson Consulting (Sibson) to conduct a Total Compensation Study of its benefits and salary program has been experiencing financial challenges due to the recession and has therefore initiated a process of institutional review An essential outcome of the review work must be the identification of $2 million in cost reductions to be realized annually beginning with FY 2014 s Total Compensation Team is one of the 8 teams, and is charged with reviewing, analyzing and making recommendations related to compensation and benefits program The Total Compensation Study is divided into four phases: Phase 1: Distribution of an on-line survey to faculty and staff, focus group session and demographic analysis (completed) Phase 2: Benchmarking benefits against up to 23 comparison institutions Phase 3: Progress updates to community Phase 4: Benchmarking salary against comparison institutions This report outlines the results of Phase 2. Upon review of the results, will be able to identify the current market position, cost savings opportunities and areas for improved program satisfaction 2

4 Introduction continued Sibson s College and University Benefits Survey (CUBS), is the vehicle used to collect data from the comparison institutions. Data was collected in two ways: 1) via an outreach directly to the institution or 2) via publicly available information The benefit plans included in our survey gathers a broad spectrum of benefits information including medical, dental, leave, life insurance, work-life, tuition and retirement The table below outlines the comprehensive benefits information gathered Health Benefit Plans Retirement Plans Other Benefits Leave Programs Non-Traditional Benefits Medical/Pharmacy Dental Retirement Pension Plans Retiree Health and Welfare Tuition Benefits Basic Life Insurance Paid Sick Leave Salary Continuance & Short Term Disability Long Term Disability (LTD) Vacation Time, Holiday and Personal Days Sabbaticals * Paternity and Maternity Leave * Day Care/ Elder Care Referral Services * Long Term Care * Legal Assistance * Group/Home Auto Insurance * Pet Insurance * Concierge Services * Adoption Assistance/Subsidy * Housing Assistance/Subsidy * Relocation Assistance/Subsidy * Health Club Fee Assistance/Subsidy * * Note that, the survey questions for the programs denoted with an asterisk only address program availability and whether or not the institution offers subsidized coverage for these programs. 3

5 Introduction continued The comparison market selection was developed by Sibson and. The following filters were used to create the comparison market Region: NY, NJ, CT, PA Institution Type: Private, Private Religious, Private Independent Operating Budget: Less than $120,000,000 (except for some NJ schools that exceed this threshold) The 23 comparison institutions that are part of the study include: Albright College Alfred University Alvernia University Canisius College Centenary College Connecticut College Fairleigh Dickinson University Gannon University Haverford College Hobart and William Smith Colleges Holy Family University Kings College Le Moyne College Molloy College Nazareth College of Rochester Rider University Saint Francis University Sarah Lawrence College Seton Hall University Susquehanna University Ursinus College Washington and Jefferson College Wilkes University Size Characteristics 25% Percentile 50% Percentile 75% Percentile Full Time Faculty Positions Administrative and Support Staff Undergraduate Student Enrollment 1,823 2,089 2,671 1,685 Graduate Student Enrollment Budget Values In % Percentile 50% Percentile 75% Percentile Institution s Endowment $28,800,000 $52,500,000 $120,000,000 $195,000,000 Annual Operating Budget $55,344,000 $71,457,000 $83,124,000 $76,600,000 4

6 Executive Summary In assessing the programs competitiveness we focus on the extent to which benefit plan provisions fall within the 25 th and 75 th percentile of other institutions benefit plan provision values. This type of analysis will give a good sense of whether its benefit plan provisions are in the middle of the pack or an outlier Sibson s overall assessment of s benefits program is characterized in the following chart Plan Faculty Professional & Administrative Staff ( Admin ) Office & Support Staff ( Support ) Medical & Pharmacy Dental Retirement Retiree Medical Tuition Benefits Life Insurance Sick, Salary Continuance, STD Long Term Disability Vacation and Other Paid Leave Non-Traditional Benefits Overall Assessment Below Average Slightly Below Average Average Slightly Above Average Above Average 5

7 Health Plan Strategies Strategies to Control Health Plan Cost Increases (% prevalence) All Institutions in CUBS 2012 Strategies Future Year Strategies 2012 Strategies Future Year Strategies Increased copayments/coinsurance percentages 35% 4 Increased deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums 22% 3 Increased employee share of the premium 37% 47% New utilization review, disease management, etc. 18% 34% Conduct a vendor search 12% 27% Changed eligibility rules 5% 3% Educated participants about cost-effective use of health benefits 43% 6 Wellness programs 45% 53% Use On-site Facility 5% 8% Observations Minimal data was provided on health strategies for the comparison institutions, so data shown is for all institutions that are in the Sibson survey Most institutions consider and deploy a variety of strategies to control health care costs. These strategies change over time and are based on responses at particular points in time The most prominent strategies include increasing copayments and/or coinsurance, increasing faculty and staff contributions, and incorporating wellness programs 6

8 Health Plan Strategies continued Current State of Institutions Wellness Initiatives (% prevalence) All Institutions in CUBS Health Risk Assessments 49% On-site biometric screening 3 Health coaching 45% Tobacco cessation 53% Obesity/weight control programs 55% Flu shots 53% Health club reimbursement. 22% Rewards/points programs 14% On-site fitness center 74% Fitness competitions 34% Routine physicals 22% Disease Management Services Currently Available to Faculty and Staff (% prevalence) All Institutions in CUBS Diabetes 75% Heart disease 6 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 45% Hypertension (high blood pressure) 55% Asthma 62% Cancer 44% Depression 2 Gastro (GERD) 14% Renal (kidney) disease 1 Obesity 33% Lower back pain 18% Observations As health care expenditures continue to rise, institutions recognize that an investment in the health of faculty and staff is critical. As a result, many institutions offer some type of wellness program Health risk assessments, weight management programs/centers, smoking cessation and flu shots seem to be the most prevalent among higher education Currently provides faculty and staff with flu shots and has an oncampus fitness center As stated in the previous slide, may want to consider a formalized wellness campaign 7

9 Medical Plan: Plan Offerings offers 3 medical PPO plans Core, Base and Enhanced administered by United HealthCare (UHC) s eligibility waiting period, 1st of month following 30 days of service, closely matches the waiting period of the comparison market institutions. Coverage is either effective on the first day of the month following employment or days for the majority of the comparison market The PPO is the predominate form of plan for the comparison institutions. We have combined the results for the POS and PPO delivery models since their network features (providers, disease management programs, etc.) and cost are not substantially different. Some of the comparison institutions offer a choice between PPO s and HMO s. Five institutions (22%) offer a high deductible health plan and no institution offers an Indemnity plan The following pages illustrate how s medical plans features and contribution requirements compare to the selected comparison market NUMBER OF PLANS OFFERED TOTAL NUMBER OF PLANS BY TYPE Number of Plans Number of Institutions Percentage of Institutions 1 Plan 4 17% 2 Plans 8 35% 3 Plans Plans 5 22% % HMO/EPO, 14 PPO/POS, 39 HDHP, 5 8

10 Domestic Partner Coverage Comparison Institutions Domestic Partner Coverage Not Offered 33% Converge Offered to Same Sex Partners 67% Coverage Offered to Opposite Sex Partners 22% Coverage Offered to Children of Domestic Partners 33% Observations offers domestic partner coverage to both same and opposite sex partners. Most of the comparison institutions only offer coverage to same sex partners 9

11 Medical Plan: Plan Features MEDICAL PPO PLAN 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 75 h Percentile Base Plan Core Plan Enhanced Plan Plan Provision In- Out- In- Out- In- Out- In- Out- In- Out- In- Out- PCP Copay $25 $20 $20 $20 $20 $15 Specialist Copay $35 $25 $20 $20 $20 $20 Per-confinement Copay 27% have a per confinement copayment None Individual Deductible $600 $1,000 $300 $500 $200 $250 $300 $600 $500 $1,500 None $300 Individual Out-of-Pocket Max $1,500 $4,000 $1,500 $3,000 $900 $2,000 $1,200 $2,400 $2,000 $3,500 None $1,700 Institution Subsidized Coinsurance % Physician Visits Non-Specialist 100% 70% 100% 75% 100% 80% 100% 70% 100% 60% 100% 70% Physician Visits Specialist 100% 70% 100% 75% 100% 80% 100% 70% 100% 60% 100% 70% In-Patient Hospital 90% 60% 100% 75% 100% 80% 90% 70% 80% 60% 100% 70% Out-Patient Hospital 90% 70% 100% 75% 100% 80% 90% 70% 80% 60% 100% 70% In-Patient Surgery 90% 60% 100% 70% 100% 80% 90% 70% 80% 60% 100% 70% Out-Patient Surgery 90% 60% 100% 70% 100% 80% 90% 70% 80% 60% 100% 70% Emergency Room Copay $50 $50 $100 $100 $100 $100 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 $75 Waived if Admitted 100% waive if admitted Yes 10

12 Medical Plan: Pharmacy PHARMACY BENEFIT Plan Provisions 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 75 th Percentile Standalone Rx Deductible 29% of the comparison institutions have a standalone deductible for pharmacy No Retail Co-pays Generic $10 $10 $10 $10 Brand Formulary $20 $25 $35 $25 Brand Non-formulary $35 $40 $50 $40 Mail Order Co-pays Generic $10 $20 $25 $20 Brand Formulary $40 $50 $50 $50 Brand Non-formulary $75 $80 $100 $80 11

13 Medical Plan: Cost and Contribution Requirements MONTHLY PREMIUM EQUIVALENT, FOR PPO MEDICAL COVERAGE Coverage Tier 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 75 th Percentile Base Plan Core Plan Enhanced Plan Employee Only $ $ $ $ $ $ Employee + Spouse $1, $1, $1, $1, $ $1, Employee + Child(ren) $1, $1, $ Family $1, $1, $1, $1, $1, $2, MONTHLY CONTRIBUTIONS, FOR PPO MEDICAL COVERAGE Coverage Tier 25 th 50 th 75 th Percentile Percentile Percentile Base Plan Core Plan Enhanced Plan Employee $ Contributions Employee Only $ $ $90.86 $ $ $ Employee + Spouse $ $ $ Employee + Child(ren) $ $ $ $ $ $ Family $ $ $ $ $ $ Employee Cost Share % Employee Only 21% 22% 20% Employee + Spouse 34% 27% 29% Employee + Child(ren) % Family 24% 25% 25% 30% 20% 45% 12

14 Medical Plan: Observations and Plan Design Opportunities Observations Medical s medical benefit plan features are average among the comparison intuitions and overall program is slightly below average when employee contribution requirements are taken into account The majority of the comparison institutions differentiate co-pays for PCPs and Specialists subsidizes the cost of coverage equally among the coverage tiers, while the comparison group tends to subsidize a greater percentage for single coverage Pharmacy s pharmacy co-pays are at the 50 th percentile of the comparison market 29% of the comparison market include a stand-alone prescription drug deductible 27% of the comparison market uses a Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) to administer their prescription drug program 13

15 Medical Plan: Observations and Plan Design Opportunities continued Plan Design Opportunities (2013 Budgeted Cost: $3,700,000) Consider creating a co-pay differential for Specialist office visits and high cost imaging for all plans Consider raising the Emergency Room co-pay to $100 Consider adding a $100 per-confinement co-pay Consider raising the Base Plan s deductible to $500 in-network and $750 out-of-network, for single coverage Consider adding a $50 stand-alone deductible to the pharmacy program, for brand prescriptions Consider creating a contribution differential across coverage tiers by raising the Base Plan s two-party and family contribution percentage to 35% Consider carve-out pharmacy plan options including partnering with a higher education coalition to benefit from volume-pricing Consider adding or replacing the current menu of plans with a consumer driven High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) Currently, 5 institutions offer a consumer-driven plan Consider eliminating out-of-network coverage for the Enhanced plan creating a HMO like program Consider a more focused wellness approach 14

16 Dental Plan: Plan Offerings s eligibility waiting period, 1st of month following 30 days service, closely matches the most common waiting period of the comparison market which is first day of the month following employment offers faculty and staff an option of three Dental PPO plans Base, Buy-Up and Premier. The majority of faculty and staff are enrolled in the Base plan Most of the comparison institutions offer one dental plan. may want to consolidate to two dental plan offerings The following pages illustrate how s dental plans compare to the selected comparison market NUMBER OF PLANS OFFERED TOTAL NUMBER OF PLANS BY TYPE Number of Plans Number of Institutions Percentage of Institutions 1 Plan 11 55% 2 Plans 9 45% 3+ Plans 0 0% % PPO, 24 DHMO, 4 Indemnity, 1 Notes: Dental data was not provided for three comparison institutions 15

17 Dental Plan: Plan Features PPO Plan Provisions 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 75 th Percentile Base Buy-Up Premier In- Out-of- In- Out-of- DENTAL PPO PLANS In- Out-of- In- Out-of- In- Out-of- In- Out-of- Single Deductible $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $50 $100 $100 $100 $100 $50 $50 Maximum Annual Benefit $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Preventive Services Benefit 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Basic Services Benefit 80% 50% 80% 80% 90% 80% 50% 50% 80% 80% 80% 80% Major Services Benefit 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Orthodontia 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% Orthodontia Lifetime Max $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 16

18 Dental Plan: Cost and Contribution Requirements MONTHLY PREMIUM EQUIVALENT, FOR DENTAL PPO COVERAGE Coverage Tier 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 75 th Percentile Base Buy-Up Premier Employee Only $44.34 $32.12 $28.12 $26.85 $31.60 $44.18 Two Party $65.05 $57.78 $52.69 $44.48 $52.90 $73.10 Family $ $95.84 $91.33 $78.32 $94.50 $ MONTHLY CONTRIBUTIONS, FOR DENTAL PPO COVERAGE Coverage Tier 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 75 th Percentile Base Buy-Up Premier Employee $ Contributions Employee Only $37.08 $17.45 $10.52 $8.66 $21.77 $33.89 Two Party $65.05 $52.69 $35.00 $13.34 $38.10 $57.55 Family $ $68.93 $44.23 $23.50 $68.38 $ Employee Cost Share % Employee Only 84% 57% 37% 32% 69% 77% Two Party 100% 91% 6 30% 72% 79% Family 75% 72% 48% 30% 72% 79% 17

19 Dental Plan: Observations and Plan Design Opportunities Observations The coinsurance (for preventive, major and orthodontia) and the annual maximum benefit is in-line with the comparison market. s deductible is higher for the Base and Buy-up plans and the Base plans' coinsurance for basic services is less rich. However s employee dollar contributions are significantly lower than the comparison market, making s overall dental program slightly above average subsidizes approximately 70% of the Base plan. Unlike the medical plan however, subsidizes a lower dollar amount for the Buy-up and the Premier programs Consistent with the comparison institutions, does not differentiate coinsurance for in-network and out-of-network services The most prominent plan type offered among the comparison institutions is a dental PPO with 45% offering a choice of two plans. offers faculty and staff a choice of three plans, but the only difference between the Buy-up and Premier plan is the deducible level Plan Design Opportunities (2013 Budgeted Cost: $150,000) Consider subsidizing the same dollar amount as the Base plan for the Buy-up and Premier programs Consider creating a subsidy differential for dependents from employees as higher education institutions often provide a greater subsidy level for employee only coverage Consider a plan design that promotes in-network utilization for Basic and Major Restorative Services Explore a triple option plan with Delta Dental Consider consolidating to one or two plans 18

20 Retiree Health Care Benefits Plan Provisions Is retiree health available for Grand-parented groups? Yes, 62% Yes Is retiree health care available to new hires? Defined Benefit Defined Contribution Not offered Observations s retiree health plan is above average when compared to the comparison institutions provides lifetime retiree medical for retirees and their spouse. s subsidy amount varies depending on when someone was hired and eligible to retire Hired before 9/1/2001: subsidizes 70% of the cost of coverage for retirees and their current dependents For employees who were not eligible to retire on 9/1/2001, this subsidy is capped at $533/month For employees hired on or after 9/1/2001, subsidizes 70% of the cost of coverage for retirees and 30% for their spouse capped at $533/month Note: When looking at the $533/month cap for pre-65 retirees it is important that consider the true cost of pre-65 coverage, not the COBRA rates as a true retiree is often 1 ½ to 2 times greater utilizes the Medicare carve-out coordination method 21% 2 53% Yes 19

21 Retiree Health Care Benefits continued Plan Design Opportunities (2013 Budgeted Cost: $640,000) Consider closing the plan to new entrants Consider leveraging the improved Medicare Part D prescription drug benefits made available through health care reform Consider defined contribution program alternatives (Note: this will not save cash cost in the near term). PIan design changes to the active medical Base plan will generate cost savings for pre-65 retirees 20

22 Defined Contribution Retirement Plan Plan Provisions Minimum Age Requirement Minimum Service Requirement 1 year 2 years, credit given for prior higher education experience Definition of Compensation: Base Salary W-2 88% 12% Base Salary Benefit Formula Based on: Age Service Vesting 100% Immediate Immediate Number of Vendor Options 65% 1 vendor 29% 2 vendors 3 vendors 1 vendor Contribution Requirement % that provide a matching contribution only % that provide a non-contributory contribution only % that provide a both Maximum Combined Institution Contribution 0% 21% 73% 18% 9% 25 th Percentile 75 th Percentile 8.0% 10% 50 th Percentile Mean 9.5% 9.1% No No incorporates a matching contribution when employees contribute 1% of the 1st $17,500 of base pay and 5% of amounts over $17,500 8% 21

23 Defined Contribution Retirement Plan: Observations and Plan Design Opportunities Observations s 8% contribution is below that of the comparison market s participation is mandatory, with faculty and staff contributing 1% of the 1 st $17,500 and 5% above $17,500 Plan Design Opportunities (2013 Budgeted Cost: $2,580,000) Consider making participation voluntary and reviewing whether the $17,500 level is still appropriate. This may not have been reviewed for quite some time Consider non-mandatory formulas (e.g.) 200% match on the 1 st 4% of employee contributions 2% non-contributory and 200% match on 1 st 3% Consider adding a vesting schedule which must be coupled with reducing the minimum service requirement to 1 year Consider reducing contributions for: Part-timers to approximate Part-timers to 4% approximate Faculty and staff less than age 30 to 5% Faculty and staff less than age 35 to 5% Faculty and staff with 5 or less years of service to 5% Faculty and staff with 5 or less years of service to 5% Note: All of the above scenarios would require non-discrimination testing If changes are going to be made to reduce the contribution level below 8%, the communications will need to be transparent with clear financial parameters that when achieved would restore the 8% level. 22

24 Tuition Benefits Employees Spouses Children Employees Spouses Children Tuition Benefit Provisions Faculty Admin Staff Support Staff Faculty Admin Staff Support Staff Faculty Admin Staff Support Staff Faculty & Staff Faculty & Staff Benefits offered (% Yes) 100% Yes Benefits Offered at Location (% Yes) Your Institution only Yours and select Institutions Any Institution Waiting Period Immediate 1 5 months 6 months 12 months 24 months 60 months % of Tuition Reimbursed Your Institution Select Institutions Any Institution 29% 29% 24% 0% 71% 19% 10% 29% 29% 24% 0% 100% is reimbursed NA NA 18% 41% 24% 0% 31% 25% 31% 25% 63% 37% 0% 13% 19% 31% 100% is reimbursed NA NA 28% 17% Note: In order to generate a response, six or more institutions must offer coverage and respond to the question 10% 7 14% 28% 17% 100% is reimbursed 100% is reimbursed NA 11% 17% 22% Yes No No 6 months at 100% N/A N/A Yes No No 36 months at 50% N/A N/A Faculty & Staff Yes Yes Yes 12 months at ; 5 years at any institution 100% 100% 42% of other s tuition up to 42% at 23

25 Tuition Benefits: Observations and Plan Design Opportunities Observations Similar to the comparison market, offers tuition benefits to faculty and their dependents at its own institution and at select institution for dependent children through Tuition Exchange programs subsidized 42% of the lesser of any accredited institution s or s tuition, for dependent children. Only 3 institutions in the comparison group offers this benefit, making s overall tuition benefit program above average The survey and focus groups indicated that the tuition assistance program was a major reason they came to s 6-month waiting period for faculty and staff is less rich, where most institutions have a 1 5 month waiting period or no waiting period The 36-month waiting period for spouse to be eligible for tuition benefits is not in-line with the comparison market. Most of the comparison institutions have less than a 12-month waiting period (69%) provides 100% coverage for faculty and staff, 50% for spouses and 100% for dependents enrolled at. The 50 th percentile benefit of the comparison market is 100% for all dependents at their own institution Plan Design Opportunities (2013 Budgeted Cost: $1,750,000) Consider reducing or eliminating the tuition assistance benefit at any institution. Some level of grandparenting would need to be considered Consider reducing the benefit level for part-time employees 24

26 Group Term Life and AD&D Insurance Waiting Period Faculty Staff Support All No waiting period 13% 1 st of the month following employment 53% 53% 47% days 13% days 13% 13% 20% 1st of the month following 30 days of service Plan Features (% offered) Waiver of premium 90% AD&D 88% Accelerated death benefit 82% Benefit based on a flat $ 27% Benefit based on a multiple of pay 73% Employee Contributions required None 50% of Premium Benefit Amount Faculty Staff Support All 1x salary 5 1.5x salary 13% 2x salary 25% 2.5x salary 3x salary 0% 2x Salary Maximum Benefit Amount Faculty Staff Support All 25 th Percentile $100, th Percentile $200,000 $200,000 $175,000 $250, th Percentile $255,000 $255,000 $250,000 25

27 Group Term Life and AD&D Insurance: Observations and Plan Design Opportunities Observations Basic life insurance at is optional and the cost is shared equally by, faculty and staff members. None of the institutions in the comparison group require employee contributions for Basic life insurance coverage. Of the 467 eligible participants, 201 (43%) waive coverage. When the 50% contribution requirement is taken into account, provides a below average Basic life insurance benefit Six institutions in the comparison market offer a flat dollar life amount with 50 th percentile and 75 th percentile of $50,000 s plan features (waiver of premium, accelerated death benefit, AD&D) are in-line with the comparison market does not offer supplemental life insurance to employees and their dependents but does offer an employee pay-all supplemental AD&D plan through Chubb, including coverage for dependents. The majority of institutions in the comparison market offer employee pay all supplemental life to employees and their dependents Plan Design Opportunities (2013 Budgeted Cost: $47,000) Consider reducing the maximum benefit amount to $100K Consider offering $50K of non-contributory life insurance and add supplemental life coverage Consider adding supplemental employee and dependent non-subsidized life insurance 26

28 Sick Leave, Salary Continuance and Short-Term Disability Sick Leave Faculty Admin Support Admin Support Waiting Period Immediate 63% 62% 54% days 38% 4 90 days 90 day Maximum Accrual per Year 25 th Percentile 10 days 9 days 50 th Percentile 10 days Taken as Needed 10 days 75 th Percentile 12 days Cash Out Option Not Offered Data Not 83% 50% End of the Year Provided 0% 13% Not Offered 27

29 Sick Leave, Salary Continuance and Short-Term Disability continued Plan Features Faculty Admin Support Faculty Admin Support Salary Continuance % who offer coverage to Yes Yes No Duration in Weeks Data Not Provided 26 weeks 26 weeks N/A % Providing 100% of Pay for Full Yes, makes Yes, makes N/A Benefit Period whole whole Short-Term Disability % with Statutory only 10% 8% 8% % with Benefit at 50% of pay 0% 17% 17% % with Benefit at 60% of pay 10% 8% 8% % with Benefit at 66-2/3% of pay 20% 17% 17% % with Benefit at 100% of pay 40% 33% 25% Elimination period 7 or 8 days 8 days Duration 26 weeks 26 weeks 28

30 Sick Leave, Salary Continuance and Short-Term Disability Observations and Plan Design Opportunities Observations provides 10 sick days to support staff which is in-line with the comparison market. At, faculty and admin staff take sick time as needed 83% of the comparison market does not allow administrative staff to cash-out sick time (50% for support staff), which is in-line with s policy Faculty and staff are eligible for the Short Term Disability (STD) plan immediately The combination of s salary continuance plan with the STD program is above average for faculty and administrators Plan Design Opportunities (2013 Budgeted Cost: $125,000) Consider providing less than 100% salary continuance during the first 3 years of employment 29

31 Long-Term Disability: Observations and Plan Design Opportunities Plan Features Faculty Admin Support All Waiting Period No waiting period 14% 1 st of the month following hire 33% days 5% 1 year days 14% 1 year 33% Elimination Period 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 180 days 180 days 75 th Percentile Benefit Percentage 25 th Percentile 50 th Percentile 60% 60% 75 th Percentile Monthly Maximum 25 th Percentile $6,000 $6,000 $5, th Percentile $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $8, th Percentile $8,000 $8,000 $7,000 Observations Long Term Disability (LTD) at is mandatory after a 1 year waiting period. The cost is shared equally by and the employee. s LTD benefit is below average when contributions are taken into account 78% of respondents indicate that faculty and staff do not contribute to the plan 67% have less than 120 day waiting period for participation The elimination period and benefit percentage are in-line with the comparison market. The monthly maximum is around the 75 th percentile 87% of the comparison institutions and employ Primary Social Security as an offset Plan Design Opportunities (2013 Budgeted Cost: $49,600) Consider changing to family social security offset 30

32 Vacation and Other Leave Arrangements Waiting Period Annual Vacation Days: 1 year 2 years 5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years 25 th Percentile 10 days 12 days 15 days 20 days 20 days 20 days Admin Support Staff 53% Immediate first of the month after hire 35% days 1 Year 50 th Percentile 15 days 15 days 20 days 20 days 20 days 20 days 75 th Percentile 20 days 20 days 20 days 21 days 22 days 23 days 25 th Percentile 10 days 10 days 13 days 16 days 20 days 20 days 41% Immediate first of the month after hire 35% days 12% 1 Year 50 th Percentile 10 days 10 days 15 days 20 days 20 days 20 days 75 th Percentile 12 days 12 days 15 days 20 days 21 days 22 days 90 days 1 year: 10 days 2 years: 10 days 5 years: 15 days 10 years: 20 days 15 years: 20 days 20 years: 20 days Vacation Carryover 77% can carryover vacation 83% can carryover vacation Cash-out unused time No cash-out provision At termination 11% 78% 13% 75% Yes; can accrue up to 140 hours, then have to start taking days Yes, maximum of 140 hours Holidays 25 th Percentile: 11, 50 th Percentile: 13, 75 th Percentile: days (including 3 floating holidays) Personal Days (Paid) 25 th Percentile: 2, 50 th Percentile: th Percentile: 3 None Last Week of Year (not part of holidays) 83% provide Yes 31

33 Vacation and Other Leave Arrangements continued Sabbatical Leave Faculty Admin & Support Faculty Admin & Support Percentage Offering Paid Sabbatical Leave (%Yes) 100% Yes Duration of Leave in Weeks Years of Service Required for Eligibility 25 th Percentile: th Percentile: th Percentile: 26 7 years Data Not Provided A semester or an academic year 4 years for junior faculty; 7 years for tenured faculty Maternity and Paternity Leave Faculty Admin & Support Maternity Leave (% Yes) 40% paid 50% unpaid 3 paid 55% unpaid Not Offered Yes, for Faculty and Staff; first 6 8 weeks are paid (vacation time can be used by admin and support staff as an extension). This benefit follows the STD plan rules Allowable maternity leave Birth and adoption Birth and adoption Duration of maternity leave 12 weeks 12 weeks for FMLA and NJ Family Leave Paid paternity leave Allowable paternity leave Duration of paternity leave Data Not Provided Unpaid FMLA and partially-paid NJ Family leave is offered Birth and adoption 12 weeks for FMLA 32

34 Vacation and Other Leave Arrangements: Observations Observations s vacation benefit accruals are near the 50 th percentile except for staff with less than 10 years of service where it is below average. Providing the last week of the year off is prevalent among the comparison institutions s sabbatical leave is positioned as a leave for scholarly and creative research and study or for professional advancement. The number of weeks provided is more generous than the comparison group (an academic year) s maternity benefit is in-line with the comparison market. Most often, institutions provide 6 to 8 weeks of paid maternity leave through a short-term disability program 33

35 Non-Traditional Benefits All Institutions in CUBS Plan Offerings Faculty and Staff Faculty and Staff On-Site Day-Care/Elder Care Long Term Care Group Legal Group Home/Auto Pet Insurance Concierge Services Adoption Assistance Subsidy Housing Assistance Health Club Fee Assistance/Subsidy 23% institution and employee paid 32% employee only paid 45% don t offer coverage institution and employee paid 72% employee paid 22% not offered 12 institution and employee paid 30% employee paid 58% not offered 3% institution and employee paid 63% employee paid 34% not offered 3% institution and employee paid 14% employee paid 83% not offered 9% employee paid 91% not offered 2 offered 74% not offered 29% offered 71% not offered 2 offered 74% not offered Yes, Acorn Academy for Day Care Not Offered Not Offered Yes Not Offered Not Offered Not Offered On campus space available to faculty and senior staff On campus fitness center Observations Results from the survey conducted in April show faculty and staff are interested in Long Term Care and Pet Insurance benefits Plan Design Opportunities Consider enhancing the current line-up of voluntary benefits 34

36 Flexible Spending Accounts Account Provisions 25 th 50 th 75 th Percentile Percentile Percentile Maximum Annual Health Account Contribution $3,000 $3,500 $5,000 $7,000 Health FSA Participation 20% 32% 49% 20% Maximum Annual Dependent Care Account Contribution $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Dependent Care Participation % 3% 20% Observations Health Care Reform will limit Health FSA Contribution to $2,500 beginning in 2013 s participation rate in the dependent care spending account plans is at the 50 th percentile Notes: participation based on census provided in March