MUS Benefits Plan in Transition

Dave Evenson retired in September after serving in Helena for 12 years as Director of Benefits for the Montana University System. Dave's departure came right after the transition to the Choices flexible benefits program and presents both an opportunity and challenge for all of us. By any measure, Dave had excellent technical skills and was a humane administrator of our plan. The fact that we receive a lot of benefit for our state contribution dollars is in no small part due to Dave Evenson's excellent plan design and legislative and technical skills. He will be hard to replace.

Dr. Richard Crofts, the Commissioner of Higher Education, has temporarily appointed Rod Sundsted as Acting Director Of Benefits until a permanent replacement can be appointed. This assignment comes to Rod on top of his full-time role as Associate Commissioner for Fiscal Affairs for the University System. Rod is no stranger to benefits programs, having directed the State Benefits Plan for five years. Because the new director will be reporting directly to the Associate Commissioner, Rod felt that the transition period afforded him the opportunity to better learn the plan, re-assess the design, and study the roles of the various consultants, administrators, and vendors. Both Rod and the Commissioner have assured me that they will act quickly in replacing Evenson and that the Interunits Benefits Committee and key payroll and benefits people throughout the state will be involved in the search.

There are certain forces in the state that advocate merging the MUS Benefits Plan with the State Benefits Plan as a cost-cutting step. These forces were at work last year during the Choices plan redesign and seem to be renewing their efforts now with Evenson's departure. They now advocate not replacing the director and entering into negotiations with the State Plan administrators. In my opinion, this is a very bad idea. Our members would lose both benefits and control in the process. The reasons are simple:

• We have a moderately better plan at a moderately lower cost;
• We have a better claims history;
• We have a vastly superior Wellness Program;
• Most of the economies of scale have already been realized by our size, and there would be little real cost savings;
• We would be less likely to be able to tailor the plan to our needs;
• It would be expensive to buy into the State Plan, for we would be required to match their higher reserve levels;
• We would have less flexibility in appeals and in our ability to go beyond the plan to meet special needs;
• We would lose a great deal of autonomy and control.