The future is now.
One of the most common questions I get as we enter into a negotiating year is "How do you think it is going to go?" As a rule I do not try to second-guess the other side in any negotiation. We know what is important to us. We come prepared to negotiate in good faith and assume that the other side will approach the process in the same vein. But perhaps this year we have some foreshadowing of the summer to come.
Last year Congress passed the "Mental Health Parity Act", an act whose interest was to require employers to provide the same medical insurance coverage for mental health problems as they did for any other health problem. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the Act only went halfway by mandating that an employer may not provide health insurance that place a different dollar limit on mental health insurance benefits than it places on other health insurance benefits. The Act did not specifically forbid employers from limiting mental health benefits in other ways. Our contract provides for an annual cap on Outpatient Mental Health coverage of $2,500; while it provides no cap on outpatient care for other health problems. Once it was determined that the Act applied to collective bargaining agreements we notified the University that it was our position that under our Agreement (Article XXXIV, Separability) the outpatient mental health benefit would continue without the monetary cap for the remainder of the term of the Agreement. The University response was to claim that the whole section on outpatient mental health was invalidated and the University had the right after discussing the issue with the AAUP to impose a new benefit if the AAUP didn't agree with the University's position. Further, if the AAUP refused to negotiate on this issue the University would impose a visit cap on the benefit. While maintaining the AAUP position that we were under no obligation to negotiate on this issue and the University had no right to impose, we agreed to meet with representatives of the University in order to reach a settlement prior to going to arbitration on this issue. At that time we were informed that the Provost's office would not be directing these discussions as is the normal practice in AAUP/Administration labor discussions but rather they would be directed by Julie Karns, Vice President for Finance. At the meeting on this issue we presented data that demonstrated that the University would have spent not one penny more if it had no limit on outpatient mental health treatment. The same data showed that their proposal to cap visits would have caused our bargaining unit members to incur greater out of pocket costs. We further pointed out that the treating of mental health coverage differently than other health problems was a product of the stigmatization of mental health problems and could not be defended either morally or fiscally. None of this prevailed, and instead we kept hearing about the need for "cost containment" and "cost control mechanisms." The meeting was short and no settlement was reached. The University has notified us of their intention of imposing their position and we have notified the University that they have no right to impose and until the parties negotiate a new agreement this summer, outpatient mental health coverage has no annual cap. We believe that regardless of what steps the University takes at this point, there will be no cap on outpatient mental health benefits during the 1999 calendar year.
Putting aside the specific issue at hand, what does this exchange suggest
about the upcoming negotiations? Does it mean that the University positions
will be directed by the Office of Finance? Does it mean that unsubstantiated
fears about "cost containment" will drive the University position? Does
it mean that the University will move quickly to try to reach impasse so
as to be able to use its legal right to impose an economic settlement?
I for one certainly hope not, but only time will tell.
February 20, 1999