Newsroom

October 10, 2007

U of L Widens Health Benefit Plan

U of L widens health benefit plans for domestic partners Employee would pay monthly premium

By Nancy C. Rodriguez
nrodriguez@courier-journal.comThe Courier-Journal

The University of Louisville announced yesterday that it has broadened its plan to provide health-insurance coverage for employees' domestic partners in an effort to meet constitutional objections.

As revised, the plan will allow coverage for one "qualifying adult" in an employee's household -- domestic partner or otherwise -- as well as for that person's children. In some cases, the adult could be a relative.

But employees who sign up for such coverage will have to shoulder the full cost of the monthly premiums; the university will not pay a portion. "We pledge that there will be no taxpayer dollars used for it," said university spokesman John Drees, who said employees were informed of the new plan Monday. The cost for an employee and a qualified adult without children ranges from $416.35 a month to $1,123.79 a month, depending on the plan selected. In contrast, coverage for an employee and spouse costs from $211.75 to $786.58. University employees begin enrolling Oct. 22 for health-insurance coverage that will take effect Jan. 1.
The revised plan -- and a similar one at the University of Kentucky -- responds to an opinion issued earlier this year by the attorney general's office. The opinion found that UK and U of L were violating the state constitution by offering health insurance only to same-sex and opposite-sex partners of employees. Attorney General Greg Stumbo said the benefits could be offered legally if the universities broadened their plans to cover others living with employees.
Under the U of L plan, an employee could extend coverage to one adult and that person's children, even if the adult is not in a romantic relationship with the employee. The adult must be unmarried and have lived with the employee for at least one year. He or she must show proof of financial interdependence with the employee for a year or more, such as a joint bank account or mortgage. Employees could get coverage for an adult who is a blood relative, but that person must be the same age as or younger than the employee. That would mean the employee could get coverage for a sibling but not a parent. The plan is in addition to U of L's existing insurance coverage for individuals, married couples and their families. U of L began offering domestic-partner coverage on Jan. 1. Stumbo's opinion, which was issued in June, did not carry the force of law. But he said at the time that he would file suit against the universities if they did not change their benefit plans. UK broadened its plan in June to allow a university employee to extend coverage to one dependent adult in the household, as well as that adult's child or children, so long as the adult is not a relative either through birth or marriage, or a UK employee. It allows UK employees to get coverage for domestic partners as well as "non-romantic" roommates who share the same residence of the employee for at least 12 months -- although the plan does not specifically identify those relationships. State appropriations are not being used to cover the cost of the UK plan. U of L and UK officials have said that the benefits meet their goals of providing affordable health care to employees and their dependents while also remaining attractive and competitive to faculty and staff. In an e-mail sent Monday to U of L employees, Provost Shirley Willihnganz said the university "is committed to fairness and diversity within our workforce." At the same time, she said, "U of L is bound to follow state law." Said Drees: "We took the attorney general's opinion into account when we developed our new policy."

The Family Foundation of Kentucky, which has opposed the universities' plans, said U of L's new policy still violates the state constitution. "The new plan does not allow a mother or father to be on the plan, but it allows a live-in lover to be on the plan," said David Edmunds, an analyst for foundation. "This undermines marriage because you have to be unmarried to qualify. Just that in and of itself is discriminatory to marriage. … It's still a domestic-partner plan. They're just trying to wiggle through loopholes to make it happen." Edmunds also challenged the assertion that tax dollars will not be involved. "When you add people on, you are going to increase the risk of that pool, and that increases the cost to everyone else," he said.

Christina Gilgor, executive director of the Kentucky Fairness Alliance, a group that works for the rights of gays and lesbians, reacted positively to U of L's new plan yesterday. "We welcome the news that the U of L has reaffirmed its commitment to a fair workplace," Gilgor said in a statement. "The Family Foundation is proving again that it doesn't live up to its name, when it goes to such lengths to prevent families from accessing much-needed health coverage."

The Family Foundation has sent a letter to Stumbo asking him for a new legal opinion on U of L's plan. It made a similar request, without success, after UK revised its plan.

Corey Bellamy, a spokesman for Stumbo's office, confirmed that the letter was received yesterday and is under review. The question before the attorney general turns on a 2004 amendment to the state constitution that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman. It also said the law can give no recognition to "a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage." In his June opinion, Stumbo said the UK and U of L plans violated the amendment in recognizing the domestic-partner arrangements.

Posted by jodycofer on 10/10/2007

Subscriptions

(Read all e-mails)

  Newsroom Archives

May 28, 2006
June 04, 2006
June 11, 2006
June 18, 2006
June 25, 2006
July 09, 2006
July 16, 2006
July 23, 2006
July 30, 2006
August 06, 2006
October 01, 2006
October 08, 2006
October 15, 2006
October 22, 2006
October 29, 2006
November 26, 2006
December 17, 2006
December 24, 2006
December 31, 2006
January 07, 2007
January 14, 2007
January 28, 2007
February 04, 2007
February 11, 2007
February 18, 2007
February 25, 2007
March 04, 2007
March 11, 2007
March 18, 2007
April 08, 2007
April 15, 2007
April 22, 2007
May 27, 2007
June 17, 2007
July 22, 2007
October 07, 2007