 |
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE
UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty
Senate
AGENDA
Tuesday, October 23, 2001,
at 1:30 PM in
112 Kern Graduate Building
[In the case of severe weather conditions or other
emergencies, you may call the Senate Office at (814) 863-0221 to inquire if a
Senate meeting has been postponed or canceled.
This may be done after normal office hours by calling the same number
and a voice mail announcement can be heard concerning the status of any
meeting. You may also leave a message
at that time.]
A. MINUTES
OF THE PRECEDING MEETING -
Minutes
of the April 24, 2001, Meeting in The Senate Record 34:7
Minutes of September 11, 2001, Meeting in The
Senate Record 35:1
B.
COMMUNICATIONS
TO THE SENATE - Senate Curriculum Report (Blue Sheets)
of
August 28, 2001 and October 9, 2001
C. REPORT OF SENATE COUNCIL - Meetings of August 21, 2001 and
October 2, 2001
D. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR -
E. COMMENTS
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY -
F.
FORENSIC
BUSINESS –
Senate Council
Joint Committee to Review the University Calendar – Initial
Findings
G.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS -
H.
LEGISLATIVE
REPORTS –
I.
ADVISORY/CONSULTATIVE
REPORTS -
J.
INFORMATIONAL
REPORTS –
University
Planning
Budget; Strategic Planning
(new approach); and Budget Planning,
Rodney A. Erickson,
Executive Vice President and Provost of the University
Senate
Council
Status
Report on the College of Medicine and the Milton S. Hershey
Medical
Center, Darrell G. Kirch, Senior Vice President for Health Affairs
and
Dean
Joint
Committee on Insurance and Benefits
Annual
Report
Admissions,
Records, Scheduling and Student Aid
Summary
of Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit
for
Non-degree Conditional Students
Awards
and Scholarships
K.
NEW LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS -
L.
COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE UNIVERSITY -
-----------------
Note:
The next regular meeting of the University Faculty Senate will be held
on Tuesday,
December 4, 2001, at 1:30 PM in Room 112
Kern Building.
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
101 Kern Graduate Building
University Park, PA 16802
(814) 863-1202 – phone (814) 865-5789 – fax
Date: October 3, 2001
To: John S. Nichols, Chair, University Faculty Senate
From: Louis F. Geschwindner, Chair, Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs
The Senate Curriculum Report, dated October 9, 2001, has been
circulated throughout the University.
Objections to any of the items in the report must be submitted to the
University Curriculum Coordinator at the Senate Office, 101 Kern Graduate
Building, e-mail ID sfw2@psu.edu, on or
before November 8, 2001.
The Senate Curriculum Report is available on the web. It can be accessed via the Faculty Senate home page (URL http://www.psu.edu/ufs). Since the Report is available on the web, printed copies are not distributed to the University community. An electronic mailing list is used to notify individuals of its publication. Please contact the Curriculum Coordinator at the e-mail ID indicated above if you would like to be added to the notification list.
Publication of the 2002-2004 Undergraduate Degree Programs Bulletin
Work is currently
underway for the next paper publication of the Undergraduate Degree Programs
Bulletin. The cut-off date for changes to the Bulletin is February
15, 2002. Curricular changes that are to appear in the 2002-2004 Bulletin
must be through the approval process (academic and administrative) by February
15, 2002. Proposals that need to go through both the academic approval process
and the administrative approval process should have been submitted to the
Senate Office by September 24, 2001. Other changes need to be submitted by the
November 5, 2001, deadline.
JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
Initial Findings
(Forensic)
Background:
Comments received during the Senate Officers’ visits to colleges and campuses as well as communication directly to the administration highlight several problems with the present academic calendar. Items mentioned by students and faculty include:
· absences during the three days prior to Thanksgiving
· a “telescoped” orientation period at U.P. prior to fall semester
· the lack of designated exam days in the summer sessions (UP)
· the disruption of fall semester caused by three “breaks” (Labor Day, fall break, Thanksgiving)
· the availability of sufficient orientation time (especially if “diversity” orientation is to be added)
· the adequacy of study days.
Questions have also been raised whether more effective use could be made of time at the end of the semester, instead of traditional final exams, as many faculty adopt active and collaborative learning models. Alternative forms of assessment throughout the semester have become common in many disciplines. The Calendar Committee was asked to review the University calendar to respond to these concerns.
When the Senate last conducted a comprehensive review of the university calendar (presented in “The Bennett Report” 1985), there was considerable divergence of faculty opinion regarding the optimum semester timetable. At that time more faculty supported the idea of a “14-week semester” with extended class periods than any of the other alternatives discussed, including the present 15-week semester.
To facilitate discussion, the Calendar Committee has operated on the assumption that alternatives to the present calendar should be considered. We have also assumed that a new survey of faculty opinion would reveal a diverse range of opinion, similar to the Bennett survey, and therefore is impractical, particularly since the charge included the expectation that recommendations on calendar be brought forward in the fall. The intent of this report is to share with the Senate as a whole the findings of our investigation of the calendars of comparable institutions as well as to suggest alternative calendar configurations that Penn State might consider. We hope that the discussion not only will express the opinions of our academic community regarding possible changes in the calendar but also will provide suggestions for improving on the alternatives we have proposed.
Foundations:
In the course of our deliberations, the Calendar Committee quickly reached consensus on several principles brought forward by its members:
· The University calendar should provide flexibility in serving the academic interests and needs of students and faculty.
· The calendar should provide appropriate time for examinations and other assessment activities as part of the fall and spring semesters and each summer session.
· The fall and spring semesters should be as symmetrical (i.e., equal in length) as possible.
· There should be an appropriate “break” during each semester.
· A post-Labor Day start is highly desirable.
· The fall semester should end before the traditional December holiday season.
· National holidays should be recognized if possible.
· Arrival day (UP) should occur on a Saturday.
· Commencement (UP) should occur on a Saturday.
· There should be provision for orientation time at the beginning of each semester.
The principles above are open to discussion; however since they arise from pro and con comments regarding the present calendar and from various practical considerations of scheduling, they constitute the framework against which our committee has tested various calendar configurations.
The committee conducted benchmarking to examine the calendars of comparable institutions both within the Commonwealth and around the country. According to the academic calendars posted on their websites, Temple and Pitt schedule classes using the following arrangement of instructional days:
Institution Fall Spring Total
Temple University 70 70 140 + final examinations
Univ. of Pittsburgh 71 69 140 + final examinations
Penn State 74 75 149
+ final examinations
Fall 2001 Temple Pitt Penn State
First Day of Fall Classes 8/27 8/27 8/21
Labor Day Holiday 9/3 9/3 9/3
Semester Break N/A N/A 10/8-9
Thanksgiving 11/22-25 11/21-25 11/22-25
Study Days 12/6-7 N/A N/A
Classes End 12/8 12/7 12/7
Final Exams 12/10-15 varies 12/10-14
Spring 2002 Temple Pitt Penn State
First Day of Spring Classes 1/22 1/7 1/7
MLK Holiday -- 1/21 N/A
Spring Break 3/11-15 3/4-8 3/4-8
Classes End 5/6 4/19 4/26
Study Day 5/7 N/A N/A
Final Exams 5/8-14 varies 4/29-5/3
Current “Big Ten” comparisons appear in Table 1. During the past academic year the University of Michigan, in its own calendar study, compiled national comparative data on instructional days (Table 2). Current practices at Penn State, including the use of final exam days, were examined as well. The analysis of this information led the committee to the following conclusions:
· There is no universal standard for class days/hours in class per credit hour, nor is there one standard for state or state-related institutions in Pennsylvania.
· There is no universal standard for a minimum number of “instructional days” per course or for counting the instructional days since some institutions include final exam days while others do not.
· Within the “Big Ten” the present calendar places Penn State among the highest-ranking schools on the semester calendar in terms number of “instructional days” whether or not exam days are counted.
· Similarly, compared to other national research universities, Penn State semesters are among the longest, with several outstanding institutions having significantly fewer instructional days per semester.
· At University Park, approximately 40% of classes actually schedule final examination periods.
· Because of increased pedagogical diversity (e.g., active and collaborative learning) and alternative means of assessment (e.g., group project presentations), the number of classes needing final examinations has declined and may decline further.
· If there is no change to the class schedule (i.e., minutes per class), the impact of calendar change on scheduling classrooms and laboratories will be minimized.
· It would be possible to maintain the total number of instructional minutes in a shortened semester by lengthening class minutes (e.g., to 55/80 minutes), though a lengthened class day complicates the scheduling of facilities.
· Considerable precedent at other institutions and residual support at Penn State exist for shortening the semester to 14-weeks of “instructional days.”
· Fall semester issues are much more troublesome than spring semester issues.
Possible Calendar
Configurations:
The Calendar Committee has discussed several alternative configurations for the Penn State academic calendar. Among the possibilities not advanced are models including asymmetrical semesters, usually scheduling a significantly shorter fall semester always beginning after Labor Day and ending before the December holiday season. Another modification discussed would be to shorten the final examination period, possibly to as few as two days to accommodate only those courses needing extended-period or common exams; however there are scheduling problems at all locations as well as the potential for dramatically increasing conflicting exams for students. We offer the following four configurations as the most likely alternatives for our consideration:
1. A 15-week instructional semester, plus 5
days of final exams.
This alternative maintains the status quo. Depending on the particular year, classes begin during the third or fourth week of August and continue until early December, followed by a week of final exams. While some modification of the Fall Break and Thanksgiving recess may be possible, the other issues prompting the review of the calendar will remain unresolved.
2. A 15-week semester, including final exams
and all forms of final assessment.
This alternative maintains the current class duration (e.g. 50 or 75 minutes) for the 15- week semester, but does not include a separate final examination week. This recommendation can provide flexibility for various types of instruction and assessment: activities that can occur throughout the duration of the semester (such as group projects or research papers) as well as those (such as comprehensive exams) which occur at the end of the semester, perhaps using more than one class meeting for long exams. This calendar would have the net effect of shortening the semester by a week, allowing classes to start later in the fall and to begin later in the spring (assuming the current semester end-dates). A post-Labor Day start would be possible in some years, and additional time could be available for expanded orientation activities for freshmen. To implement this plan requires the revision of Senate policy 44-20 regarding final exam days. The 40% of classes at University Park which schedule final exam periods would need to schedule exams during class periods or alter their methods of final assessment. Common exam periods and alternate rooms (for exam seating configurations) would be difficult, if not impossible, to schedule. The last days of the 15th week will likely be “exam heavy” and using time during the final week for assessment activities will shorten the traditional “instructional” time.
3. A 14-week instructional semester (extended
class times), plus 5 days of final exams.
As with Alternative 2, this schedule has the net effect of
shortening the semester by a week, but it maintains a separate final exam
period. The “Bennett Report” offered a
similar scenario as part of its survey of faculty opinion, and while at that
time no alternative received a clear majority of opinion, more faculty
supported an extended-period 14-week semester than any other alternative schedule. The number of instructional minutes would remain unchanged, as
would the ability to schedule final examination periods. However, the re-engineering of daily classroom
schedules to accommodate 55/80-minute class sessions will not be an easy task
at University Park and at other locations.
Additional minutes may be found at the beginning of the day and at the
end of the day. Changing the passing
time between classes (to increase class minutes) may not be practical since
many faculty feel that the time between classes is compressed to the limit
now. Students are often reluctant to
schedule classes that meet very early or very late in the day. At some locations where a full schedule of
evening classes begins immediately after the last “day” period ends, there may
not be adequate flex time available to extend the day without postponing
evening classes to start/end times that will discourage students from
enrolling.
4.
A 14-week instructional semester (established class times), plus 5 days
of final exams.
This schedule is similar to Alternative 3, but because the current schedule of class times is maintained, it has the effect of reducing the number of instructional minutes in order to shorten the semester by one week. Other institutions, such as Temple and Pitt, use such a schedule, and this type of semester still offers at least 69 days of instruction in the fall semester, comparable to the schedule at the University of Michigan. However, we recognize the concern that current courses would need modification to fit this shortened schedule.
Fall Break/ Spring
Break
The Calendar Committee did not consider a recommendation to change Penn State’s traditional Spring Break. However, our charge prompted considerable discussion regarding the current Fall Break and the traditional Thanksgiving holiday. It is widely held that these recesses during the fall semester provide the occasion for informal extension of the breaks due to student absences in spite of the University's efforts to discourage the practice.
The University established a mid-semester Fall Break in 1999, responding to student concerns and recognizing that similar practices at other institutions were found to have academic value. One way to consolidate the interruptions of the semester and to provide a week-long break parallel (in length) to Spring Break is to combine Fall Break with Thanksgiving recess, offering students and faculty a class-free week late in the fall semester (typically the 12th week). Although the break would occur past the mid-point of the semester, such a configuration would still provide time for “catch up” and “stress relief” prior to the end-of- semester-activities while minimizing the temptation to cancel/cut classes adjacent to the two partial-week breaks we now have. This redefinition of Fall Break could be included with any of the four semester configurations described above.
Summer Session Final
Exams:
Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 for the semester calendar maintain the current policy of designated time for instruction and separate time for final exams or other final assessment activities (see Senate Policy 44-20). Currently the University Park summer sessions do not designate a specific, separate final exam period, while summer sessions at other university locations may do so. We suggest that if our practice is to keep final exams separate from instructional days, this practice should be applied consistently for the summer sessions as well.
Conclusion:
This report reflects the thinking of the Calendar Committee to this point in time. We look forward to using the information gained during the discussion prompted by this report to frame a recommendation to be forwarded to the Senate Committee on University Planning and Undergraduate Education for appropriate action.
JOINT COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
Anthony Baratta
George Bugyi
John Cahir
Peter Emigh
Donald Leslie
James Smith, Chair
Jane Sutton
Josh Troxell
James Wager
2001-2002
Big Ten Calendar Summary
Instructional Days
|
Universities on the Semester System |
Fall Semester Instruction |
Fall Semester Exams |
Spring Semester Instruction |
Spring Semester Exams |
Total Inst Days |
Total Inst + Exams |
|
Illinois |
72 |
6 |
72 |
6 |
144 |
156 |
|
Indiana |
72 |
5 |
74 |
5 |
146 |
156 |
|
Iowa |
75 |
5 |
74 |
5 |
149 |
159 |
|
Michigan |
69 |
6 |
68 |
6 |
137 |
149 |
|
Michigan State* |
71 |
5 |
71 |
5 |
142 |
152 |
|
Minnesota |
72 |
6 |
74 |
6 |
146 |
158 |
|
Penn State |
75 |
5 |
75 |
5 |
150 |
160 |
|
Purdue |
73 |
6 |
75 |
6 |
148 |
160 |
|
Wisconsin |
72 |
6 |
74 |
6 |
146 |
158 |
|
Universities
on the Quarter System |
1st Quarter Instruction |
1st Quarter Exams |
2nd Quarter Instruction |
2nd Quarter Exams |
3rd Quarter Instruction |
3rd Quarter Exams |
Total Inst Days |
Total Inst + Exams |
|
Northwestern |
53 |
6 |
50 |
6 |
49 |
6 |
152 |
170 |
|
Ohio State |
50 |
4 |
49 |
4 |
49 |
4 |
148 |
160 |
*Spring 2001 figures;
Spring 2002 not available
University of Michigan Calendar Survey
INSTITUTION |
TERM TYPE |
FALL |
SPRING |
Total Days |
|
|
ARIZONA |
SEM. |
74 |
75 |
149 |
|
|
BRANDEIS |
SEM. |
65 |
65 |
130 |
|
|
CARNEGIE-MELLON |
SEM. |
71 |
72.5 |
146.5 |
|
|
CASE
WESTERN |
SEM. |
70 |
70 |
140 |
|
|
CATHOLIC UA |
SEM. |
70 |
70 |
140 |
|
|
COLORADO |
SEM. |
75 |
75 |
150 |
|
|
DUKE |
SEM. |
70 |
70 |
140 |
|
|
EMORY |
SEM. |
69 |
69 |
138 |
|
|
FLORIDA |
SEM. |
82.5 |
85 |
167.5 |
INCLUDES
6 DAYS OF EXAMS |
|
HARVARD |
SEM. |
63 |
62 |
125 |
|
|
ILLINOIS |
SEM. |
72 |
72 |
144 |
|
|
IOWA |
SEM. |
76 |
74 |
150 |
|
|
IOWA
STATE |
SEM. |
74 |
74 |
148 |
|
|
KANSAS |
SEM. |
75 |
75 |
150 |
|
|
MARYLAND |
SEM. |
72 |
72 |
144 |
|
|
MICHIGAN
|
SEM. |
69 |
69 |
138 |
|
|
MICHIGAN
ST. |
SEM. |
72 |
74 |
146 |
|
|
MINNESOTA |
SEM. |
70 |
74 |
144 |
|
|
MISSOURI |
SEM. |
75 |
77 |
152 |
|
|
MIT |
SEM. |
65 |
65 |
130 |
|
|
NEBRASKA |
SEM. |
74 |
74 |
148 |
|
|
PENN
ST. |
SEM. |
74 |
75 |
149 |
|
|
PITT |
SEM. |
72 |
72 |
144 |
|
|
RICE |
SEM. |
70 |
67 |
137 |
|
|
ROCHESTER |
SEM. |
69 |
71 |
140 |
|
|
SUNY-BUFFALO |
SEM. |
83 |
84 |
167 |
|
|
TULANE |
SEM. |
68 |
71 |
139 |
|
|
UC
BERKLEY |
SEM. |
71 |
75 |
146 |
|
|
UNC |
SEM. |
74 |
75 |
149 |
|
|
USC |
SEM. |
72 |
72 |
144 |
|
|
VANDERBILT |
SEM. |
70 |
70 |
140 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TERM TYPE |
1st |
2nd |
3rd |
Total |
|
CHICAGO |
QUART. |
53 |
53 |
54 |
160 |
|
STANFORD |
QUART. |
51 |
47 |
46 |
144 |
|
UC
DAVIS |
QUART. |
49 |
48 |
? |
? |
|
UCLA |
QUART. |
? |
? |
? |
146 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except
as noted exams and other non-instructional days are not included in these
figures. |
|
|
|
|
|
SENATE COUNCIL
Status Report on the College of Medicine and the Milton S. Hershey
Medical Center
(Informational)
In recent years, the components of Penn State located on the Hershey campus have experienced significant challenges. National trends regarding the organization and financing of health care, combined with an unsuccessful attempt to merge The Milton S. Hershey Medical Center with another health system, have put the Penn State clinical enterprise under great stress. Other challenges have included falling national interest in applying to medical school, and an emerging widespread shortage of nursing personnel.
The effects of and responses to these challenges will be discussed. An assessment will be given of recent accomplishments by the College of Medicine and Medical Center in their academic, research, clinical care, and service missions. Most importantly, information regarding the future strategic directions of the Hershey campus, and the potential for productive collaborations with other Penn State campuses, will be discussed.
SENATE COUNCIL
John W. Bagby
Connie D. Baggett
Robert L. Burgess
Alison Carr-Chellman
Wayne R. Curtis
W. Travis DeCastro
Gordon F. De Jong
Caroline D. Eckhardt
Rodney A. Erickson
Dennis S. Gouran
Elizabeth A. Hanley
Deidre E. Jago
Peter C. Jurs
Alphonse E. Leure-duPree
Salvatore A. Marsico
Ronald L. McCarty
Louis Milakofsky
John W. Moore
John S. Nichols, Chair
P. Peter Rebane
Winston A. Richards
Alan W. Scaroni
Cara-Lynne Schengrund
Loanne L. Snavely
Graham B. Spanier
Steven W. Stace
Brian B. Tormey
JOINT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AND BENEFITS
Annual Report
(Informational)
The Joint Committee on Insurance and Benefits met on November 14, 2000, January 29, 2001, March 22, 2001, May 14, 2001 and August 21, 2001. This report is a summary of the issues reviewed and discussed and the actions recommended by the Committee in the following areas:
- Health Plan Issues and Changes
- Prescription Drug Programs and Trends
- Web-based Enrollment
- Health Plan Initiatives
- Flexible Benefits
- Retirement and Annuities
- Post-Doctoral Benefits
- Retiree Benefit Issues
- Task Force Report Update
Health Plan Issues and Changes
Penn State remains committed to providing faculty and staff with a choice among high quality health care plans. Continually escalating health care costs remain a significant challenge in meeting that objective. In all instances, negotiations between health plans and health care providers have resulted in premiums increases. In some situations, Penn State’s benefit programs have been affected by provider and/or health plan decisions to withdraw from participation in specific areas.
As
of January 1, 2001, additional HMO options were extended to faculty and staff
residing in certain counties. Residents
of Erie, Crawford and Warren Counties were given the opportunity to enroll in
the New Alliance HMO. Lehigh and
Northampton County residents had the opportunity to select Keystone Health Plan
Central HMO. While New Alliance was
offered as an alternative plan, contracting difficulties between Aetna US
Healthcare and Lehigh Valley providers required the University to offer a
substitute to the Aetna HMO in that area.
The
announcement of the unwinding of the merger that formed the Penn State
Geisinger Health System generated concern among Committee members. Although there is no direct responsibility
for benefits provided to Hershey Medical Center employees, there was concern
regarding the continuing availability of Geisinger health plans and
physicians. The Committee was updated,
as appropriate, on those matters within their purview.
As evidenced by the 2001 health plan premiums, medical plan costs have continued to escalate, driven primarily by rapidly increasing costs for prescription drugs and for new medical technology and treatment methods. Rising prescription costs were cited by all University health plan sponsors and administrators as the primary reason for premium increases. Those increased costs are dramatically illustrated by the premium increases for 2001, a trend that benefit industry experts expect will continue for the near future.
Prescription Drug Programs and Trends
Given the focus on the increasing cost of prescription drugs, the Committee discussed and reviewed the prescription drug benefits available to Penn State faculty and staff. Each of the University-sponsored health care plans utilizes a Pharmacy Benefit Manger, such as Caremark. While the drug formularies will vary from one managed care plan to another, each places restrictions on the pharmaceuticals available and most mandate generic drugs when available.
Additionally, the Committee requested and received a cost comparison of maintenance prescription drugs from commercial pharmacy outlets and the Penn State Maintenance Prescription Drug Plan (MPDP). While the overall cost difference between commercial pharmacies and the MPDP plan has narrowed, the MPDP program continues to offer distinct advantages to faculty and staff, primarily from a cash flow standpoint. The MPDP program does not include a deductible and requires the participant to pay only the 20% cost of the prescription. Drugs purchased under the major medical portion of Plan A or the Healthpass PPO require full payment by the participant, who is later reimbursed for 80% of the cost.
Again, in response to continued concerns expressed by faculty and staff, the Committee explored the turnaround time for new prescriptions and for refills through the MPDP program. Response time has been affected by a significant turnover of pharmacy staff, including the retirement of the chief pharmacist in July. A new chief pharmacist has been appointed and other staff positions filled. However, it is important to note that a shortage of licensed pharmacists is being felt throughout the industry.
In response to this nationwide shortage, many hospitals and pharmacies have implemented new technological assistance. Similarly, the University Health Services Pharmacy has installed automated prescription machinery. The new equipment is capable of filling large numbers of prescriptions each hour. This system is designed to improve prescription refill time, while enabling the pharmacy staff to counsel patients regarding their prescription needs.
It is expected that prescription drug costs will continue to escalate. The aging of the baby-boomer population and ongoing pharmaceutical research for disease treatment are significant factors, as is direct marketing to consumers now being utilized by drug manufacturers. The Employee Benefits Division will continue to closely monitor this increasingly important and costly aspect of the University benefits program.
Health Plan Initiatives
In conjunction with University benefits consultants, the Employee Benefits Division initiated a review of the current Healthpass PPO program and the feasibility of enhancing the program to include preventative care. The Healthpass PPO was designed as a variation of a traditional hospital, surgical, major medical plan and, as such, excluded coverage for preventative care. Preventative care is a primary feature of the HMOs and Point of Service (POS) plans that are available to most faculty and staff.
POS programs are designed to combine the preventative care features of HMOs with the freedom of choice that PPO participants enjoy. Additionally, the Task Force wished to address the health plan needs of faculty on sabbatical outside of the coverage area as well as dependents residing outside the coverage area. At the recommendation of the Task Force, Point of Service plans were offered as a health plan option in January 1999.
While the POS programs provide both freedom of choice and preventative care, the important issues of coverage for those residing outside of the coverage area have not been met. Additionally, the cost of the POS programs continues to escalate at a much higher rate than other University health plans.
Given these considerations, the Employee Benefits Division, in conjunction with University benefits consultants, have proposed enhancements to the Healthpass PPO, including preventative care. Both HealthAmerica and University benefits consultants have provided preliminary cost estimates for the proposed enhancements. These changes are being reviewed further by University administration.
While immunizations are part of the preventative care program offered by HMOs, none currently provides routine immunizations for meningitis. The committee requested that the Employee Benefits Division contact the health plan companies to inquire about their willingness to add this coverage and the approximate additional cost to do so. The Employee Benefits Division has written to each of the HMO and POS plan providers to determine their willingness to include meningitis vaccinations and the approximate cost to do so.
Although meningitis immunizations are not commonly offered by health plans, an increasing number of colleges and universities are recommending the vaccination to students. Penn State is benchmarking with the Big Ten universities to determine if the inoculations are required, the cost of the immunizations and whether or not they are covered by the university’s health plan.
Penn State’s HMOs currently provide meningitis vaccines to individuals considered to be at risk because of exposure to the disease or because of a physical condition. Legislation has been introduced in the Pennsylvania State Senate that would mandate immunizations for college students. Should this law be enacted, meningitis vaccinations would be included as part of the mandated inoculations that currently are covered by HMOs.
The Committee supports the efforts of the Employee Benefits Division to enhance the benefits programs in a manner that supports both the mission of the University and the diverse needs of the University community. Recognizing the importance of quality benefit programs that are affordable to both faculty and staff and to Penn State, the committee will continue work closely with the Employee Benefits Division to monitor increasing costs and measure participant satisfaction.
Toward that goal, the Committee was asked to review a draft of an HMO Satisfaction Survey. Comments and suggestions were made regarding items to be added or deleted. Further, it was suggested that consideration be given to including all University health plans in the survey. The results of the surveys will be instrumental in future benefit planning and coverage designs.
Web-Based Benefits
Enrollment
The
Joint Committee also reviewed the effectiveness and efficiencies of the
web-based enrollment for benefits, discussing their observations and concerns. Web-based enrollment for new Penn State
faculty and staff became operational on May 1, 2000. Use of web-based enrollment requires an Access Account from the
Center for Academic Computing (CAC).
Staff members from the Employee Benefits Division are available to
assist faculty and staff with the process.
The
web-based process provides a fast and efficient system for enrollment, reducing
the time required for participants to receive their health care ID cards. The use of the web-based enrollment system
for new faculty and staff continues to grow, supported by human resources
representatives and University administration.
The Joint Committee endorsed the efforts of the Employee Benefits
Division to increase utilization and expand the use of technology to other
benefit areas.
The
benefits open enrollment for 2001 also was web-based, improving both efficiency
and accuracy, and further reducing costs associated with printing and forms
handling. Employee benefit plan
choices, coverage descriptions, and provider directories all were accessible
from the open enrollment web site. The
Employee Benefits Division reported that approximately 87% of changes and
elections were done using the web-based system.
As part of the web-based enrollment program, faculty and staff were encouraged to complete a survey regarding their experience with the process. While a few were firmly opposed to the new system, the vast majority of the comments were positive and offered important suggestions for improving the program. The most frequent suggestion was that faculty and staff should be given the opportunity to make changes to dental and vision coverage and to their tax-deferred annuity program. These functions currently are being reviewed by the Employee Benefits Division with the objective of including them in a third phase of web-based benefits processing.
Given the increased emphasis on web-based benefits information, Committee members reviewed the information currently available. Several changes and/or improvements were suggested to improve communication and employee participation.
Flexible Benefits
Recognizing the tax savings potential of participation in flexible spending accounts and its importance in meeting the benefit needs of faculty and staff, the Committee recommended that the Employee Benefits Division expand the information on its web site to include more specific examples of expenses that are eligible for reimbursement. Employee Benefits staff members currently reviewed and revised the flexible benefits information available on the Benefits web-site. In addition to the information previously provided, including links to IRS publications, a separate question and answer feature was included.
Additionally, Committee members were advised that the Office of Human Resources, in conjunction with the Controller’s office, would implement the direct deposit of flexible benefit reimbursement checks. Direct deposits of reimbursements to participants began May 1, 2001 and are made to the same bank account as is their University pay, eliminating the current delays caused by mailing these checks to the participant’s home. As a result of this improved efficiency, flexible benefits deposits are now made once each week rather than twice a month. Participants receive e-mail notification of the deposit.
Retirement and Annuities
Important changes to the State Employees Retirement System (SERS) were authorized by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and approved by the Governor. These changes increase the multiplier in the retirement formula from 2% to 2.5%. Additionally, employee contributions will increase from 5% to 6.25%. The increased multiplier affects those who retire after July 1, 2001. The increased contribution will take effect January 1, 2002.
The Committee reviewed the potential effect on retirements as a result of the changes in the law. As no early retirement incentive or “window” was included in the legislation, it is expected that the changes will not prompt a larger number of employees to retire than usual.
Joint Committee members also reviewed the Supplemental Retirement Annuities (SRA) program. SRAs are available from five companies. Unlike other benefit plans, SRAs may begin at any time during the year. Contribution amounts and investments may be changed as often as the participant desires. Maximum contribution amounts are subject to IRS maximums. Also discussed was the periodic process where each of the companies providing SRA services to Penn State is reviewed and evaluated.
Post-Doctoral Benefits
Effective July 1, 2000, post-doctoral scholars and fellows have their health plan costs automatically deducted from their stipend payments. In addition to the efficiency provided by automatic deduction, the funds are deducted untaxed through the contribution conversion provisions of the flexible benefits program.
Other improvements to post-graduate coverage were added. Individuals were given the opportunity to participate in dental, vision and life insurance programs effective September 1, 2000. The cost for these programs also is deducted, untaxed, from the monthly stipend payments.
Retiree Benefit Issues
HMO availability issues also surfaced for University retirees. Geisinger elected to discontinue Geisinger Gold, their Medicare Risk HMO in Centre County effective December 31, 2000. Working with HealthAmerica, the Employee Benefits Division was
able to secure alternative HMO coverage for many University retirees enrolled in Geisinger Gold. Those affected by the Geisinger decision who were unable to secure coverage with HealthAmerica were enrolled in the University Medicare Supplement. The Committee learned that future availability of Medicare HMOs will continue to be tenuous. The Employee Benefits Division was encouraged to continue its efforts to provide retirees with viable coverage options.
The Joint Committee reviewed the possibility of extending dental and vision coverage to benefits eligible retirees of Penn State. The findings and recommendations of the 1998 Task Force on the Future of Benefits were reviewed. Although the Task Force determined that a viable market for this program was not available, the Committee asked that the Employee Benefits Division revisit the issue.
The rates for retirees provided
by the University’s dental plan provider continue to be significantly higher
than for active employees and present a cost that would not be practical or
sustainable by retirees or the University.
However, National Vision Administrators (NVA) proposed a vision discount
program, called Opti-Vision, as an alternative for retirees. Unlike the vision plan for active employees,
no reimbursement is provided and the cost per month ($0.40) is significantly
less than the rates for active employees.
The Opti-Vision program will be offered to Penn State retirees effective
January 1, 2002.
While not specifically a retiree benefit, the Joint Committee again reviewed long-term care coverage as a benefit option for Penn State faculty and staff. Long-term care plans also were reviewed by the Task Force on the Future of Benefits in 1998, which recommended further study of these plans.
The Committee’s concerns regarding high cost and market volatility remain. These plans are available on an individual basis from companies such as TIAA-CREF and as such are available to all Penn State faculty and staff. While individual interest in this coverage remains, the Committee has not seen the type of broad based interest by employees that would warrant a group benefit offering. The Employee Benefits Division and the Joint Committee will continue to monitor the market and will revisit these plans should significant changes occur.
Task Force Report Update
The
Committee reviewed the status of the recommendations made by the Task Force on
the Future of Benefits. While many of
the recommendations have been implemented others have been implemented in part
but may require further refinement.
The
dental program as administered by United Concordia Companies, Inc. (UCCI)
includes a network of participating providers. Those who use UCCI providers have noted and commented on the
savings being realized. However, the
Committee believes that Penn State should continue to review program costs and
features that are offered by other dental plan providers and networks.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE AND BENEFITS
Kenneth S. Babe
Bill Ellis
George W. Franz, Chair
Nancy J. Hensal
Michael G. Klein
Joan M. Lakoski
Patricia (Trish) J. Long
Leonard J. Berkowitz
Patience Simmonds
Billie S. Willits
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS,
SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Summary of
Petitions for Waiver of the Twelve-Credit Limit
for Non-degree Conditional Students
(Informational)
Students who have been dropped for poor scholarship are commonly called non-degree conditional students. These students are limited to twelve (12) credits per semester/session while working to improve their cumulative average for reinstatement to degree candidacy. Exceptions to the twelve-credit limitation may be requested of the Senate Committee on Admissions, Records, Scheduling and Student Aid. Exceptions might include: difficulty scheduling courses to stay in sequence for the student’s program; or, the student has shown evidence of improved academic performance.
A summary of the actions of these petitions follows:
For the Period Submitted Granted Denied
08-01-99 - 08-31-00 29 26 3
09-01-00 – 07-31-01 13 10 3
A detailed breakdown by college, unit or location is attached for your information.
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING AND STUDENT AID
Deborah Atwater
Edward W. Bittner
Ingrid M. Blood
Kevin R. Cheesebrough
JoAnn Chirico, Chair
Peter Deines
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Chau-Luen Li
Annette K. McGregor, V-Chair
Katherine Neimeister
Victor Nistor
Martin T. Pietrucha
P. Peter Rebane
John J. Romano
J. James Wager
Summary of 12-Credit Limit Petitions
College or Unit Approved Denied Approved Denied
Agricultural Sciences 5 1 1
Abington 1 2 1
Beaver 1
Berks Lehigh 6 1 2
Eberly College of Science 1
Engineering 1
Health & Human Development 2 3
Liberal Arts 0 2
Penn State Harrisburg 2
Registrar’s Office 3
Scranton 3
Smeal College of Business Adm. 2 1 1
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ADMISSIONS, RECORDS, SCHEDULING
AND STUDENT AID
Awards and Scholarships
(Informational)
This committee is charged with selecting the recipients of those awards and scholarships that come under the jurisdiction of the University Faculty Senate. Awards were made based on the following guidelines:
1. Scholarship and need were the primary criteria.
2. In the selection of recipients, the committee follows the
donor’s specifications as approved by the Board of Trustees.
3. Awards were made beginning with those students with the
highest cumulative grade point average and most substantial
need.
The following is a summary of the committee’s work. It should be noted that the committee awarded all available funds. A list of the students receiving awards is on file in the Senate Office.
Senate Committee on Admissions, Records,
Scheduling and Student Aid Committee
Deborah F. Atwater, V-Chair
Edward W. Bittner
Ingrid M. Blood
Kevin R. Cheesebrough
JoAnn Chirico, Chair
Peter Deines
Anna Griswold
Geoffrey J. Harford
Chau-Luen Li
Annette K. McGregor
Katherine Neimeister
Victor Nistor
Martin T. Pietrucha
P. Peter Rebane
John J. Romano
K. James Wager
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY
The University Faculty Senate
MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 2, 2001 1:30 PM 102 Kern Graduate Building