APS and new healthcare provider

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was handled poorly and employees can’t do anything about it. We got an apology. That’s it.

Or, APS handled it as any employer would and employees are just mad.
Or, something in the middle. Maybe APS made some sort of deliberate or unintended mistake to exclude Kaiser, maybe they didn't. But the teacher's representative group AEA should have been aware contract was expiring and there's always a chance of changes.
I will agree that holding all the sessions about the insurance/whatever it is the teachers need to do during the school day is ludicrous, thoughtless, and serves Syphax employees' schedules rather than teachers.

There are, as I see it, three possibilities:
1) APS excluded Kaiser by accident (i.e. wrote the RFP in such a way that Kaiser can't or wouldn't bid), and upon realizing their mistake, chose to just go forward and force everyone else to live with it with the absolute bare minimum notice.
2) APS excluded Kaiser due to some misplaced sense of priorities (such as fewer providers means processing fewer payments, less back-end paperwork). That would mean APS places a lower value on keeping the health benefits of 50% of its workforce than on an opportunity to reduce its own administrative burden. In this scenario, APS also didn't feel the need to let anyone know it made this choice until the last possible moment.
3) Kaiser chose not to participate despite APS offering ostensibly reasonable terms it had offered in years past (seems pretty unlikely given that Kaiser is generally one of the more affordable and centralized providers, but we can entertain it as a possibility). In this case APS still failed to let people know what was going on, both to get them ready, and to give them a chance to agitate for Kaiser to change its tune.

In all three scenarios waiting until the open season to let people know what happened is just an appalling management failure. In each scenario, letting things play out like they did just suggests a total clock-punching mentality on the part of Syphax, doing the bare minimum and then just shrugging if things go wrong. And now the burden of that incompetence is being borne by the people who are actually responsible for carrying out APS' mission. Considering our tax dollars go to achieving that mission, people have a right to be unhappy.

Provider changes are a part of life, and happen to lots of employers. But the way this provider change was handled is unacceptable. This is a basic function of any medium or large scale organization and they managed to screw it up. Even if they didn't screw it up (as in scenario 3), their lassitude and failure to communicate turned it into a screw up. You can't expect an organization to accomplish its mission well if it turns a basic function (negotiating providers) into a disruptive event for half its employees, and then can't be bothered to do a to help ease the disruption.

Apologies don't fix that kind of failure. People should be fired over it.

I think there's a 4th scenario: APS was looking to streamline for cost effectiveness. Which is an acceptable and prudent business practice, in and of itself.

You're describing scenario #2. If you want to trim costs, why wait until the last moment to tell people? Also Kaiser is not the most expensive option.

Is this true? In every place I have worked that offered a Kaiser option, it WAS the most expensive plan offered. And not by a little, but premiums on the order of 2x or 3x more.

That’s interesting we are other options High deductible plans? Kaiser is the cheapest premium for APS employees but it does come with limitations obviously.

*Were your

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was handled poorly and employees can’t do anything about it. We got an apology. That’s it.

Or, APS handled it as any employer would and employees are just mad.
Or, something in the middle. Maybe APS made some sort of deliberate or unintended mistake to exclude Kaiser, maybe they didn't. But the teacher's representative group AEA should have been aware contract was expiring and there's always a chance of changes.
I will agree that holding all the sessions about the insurance/whatever it is the teachers need to do during the school day is ludicrous, thoughtless, and serves Syphax employees' schedules rather than teachers.

There are, as I see it, three possibilities:
1) APS excluded Kaiser by accident (i.e. wrote the RFP in such a way that Kaiser can't or wouldn't bid), and upon realizing their mistake, chose to just go forward and force everyone else to live with it with the absolute bare minimum notice.
2) APS excluded Kaiser due to some misplaced sense of priorities (such as fewer providers means processing fewer payments, less back-end paperwork). That would mean APS places a lower value on keeping the health benefits of 50% of its workforce than on an opportunity to reduce its own administrative burden. In this scenario, APS also didn't feel the need to let anyone know it made this choice until the last possible moment.
3) Kaiser chose not to participate despite APS offering ostensibly reasonable terms it had offered in years past (seems pretty unlikely given that Kaiser is generally one of the more affordable and centralized providers, but we can entertain it as a possibility). In this case APS still failed to let people know what was going on, both to get them ready, and to give them a chance to agitate for Kaiser to change its tune.

In all three scenarios waiting until the open season to let people know what happened is just an appalling management failure. In each scenario, letting things play out like they did just suggests a total clock-punching mentality on the part of Syphax, doing the bare minimum and then just shrugging if things go wrong. And now the burden of that incompetence is being borne by the people who are actually responsible for carrying out APS' mission. Considering our tax dollars go to achieving that mission, people have a right to be unhappy.

Provider changes are a part of life, and happen to lots of employers. But the way this provider change was handled is unacceptable. This is a basic function of any medium or large scale organization and they managed to screw it up. Even if they didn't screw it up (as in scenario 3), their lassitude and failure to communicate turned it into a screw up. You can't expect an organization to accomplish its mission well if it turns a basic function (negotiating providers) into a disruptive event for half its employees, and then can't be bothered to do a to help ease the disruption.

Apologies don't fix that kind of failure. People should be fired over it.

I think there's a 4th scenario: APS was looking to streamline for cost effectiveness. Which is an acceptable and prudent business practice, in and of itself.

You're describing scenario #2. If you want to trim costs, why wait until the last moment to tell people? Also Kaiser is not the most expensive option.

Is this true? In every place I have worked that offered a Kaiser option, it WAS the most expensive plan offered. And not by a little, but premiums on the order of 2x or 3x more.

That’s interesting we are other options High deductible plans? Kaiser is the cheapest premium for APS employees but it does come with limitations obviously.

High deductible is always the cheapest, but Kaiser was always the most expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was handled poorly and employees can’t do anything about it. We got an apology. That’s it.

Or, APS handled it as any employer would and employees are just mad.
Or, something in the middle. Maybe APS made some sort of deliberate or unintended mistake to exclude Kaiser, maybe they didn't. But the teacher's representative group AEA should have been aware contract was expiring and there's always a chance of changes.
I will agree that holding all the sessions about the insurance/whatever it is the teachers need to do during the school day is ludicrous, thoughtless, and serves Syphax employees' schedules rather than teachers.

There are, as I see it, three possibilities:
1) APS excluded Kaiser by accident (i.e. wrote the RFP in such a way that Kaiser can't or wouldn't bid), and upon realizing their mistake, chose to just go forward and force everyone else to live with it with the absolute bare minimum notice.
2) APS excluded Kaiser due to some misplaced sense of priorities (such as fewer providers means processing fewer payments, less back-end paperwork). That would mean APS places a lower value on keeping the health benefits of 50% of its workforce than on an opportunity to reduce its own administrative burden. In this scenario, APS also didn't feel the need to let anyone know it made this choice until the last possible moment.
3) Kaiser chose not to participate despite APS offering ostensibly reasonable terms it had offered in years past (seems pretty unlikely given that Kaiser is generally one of the more affordable and centralized providers, but we can entertain it as a possibility). In this case APS still failed to let people know what was going on, both to get them ready, and to give them a chance to agitate for Kaiser to change its tune.

In all three scenarios waiting until the open season to let people know what happened is just an appalling management failure. In each scenario, letting things play out like they did just suggests a total clock-punching mentality on the part of Syphax, doing the bare minimum and then just shrugging if things go wrong. And now the burden of that incompetence is being borne by the people who are actually responsible for carrying out APS' mission. Considering our tax dollars go to achieving that mission, people have a right to be unhappy.

Provider changes are a part of life, and happen to lots of employers. But the way this provider change was handled is unacceptable. This is a basic function of any medium or large scale organization and they managed to screw it up. Even if they didn't screw it up (as in scenario 3), their lassitude and failure to communicate turned it into a screw up. You can't expect an organization to accomplish its mission well if it turns a basic function (negotiating providers) into a disruptive event for half its employees, and then can't be bothered to do a to help ease the disruption.

Apologies don't fix that kind of failure. People should be fired over it.

I think there's a 4th scenario: APS was looking to streamline for cost effectiveness. Which is an acceptable and prudent business practice, in and of itself.

You're describing scenario #2. If you want to trim costs, why wait until the last moment to tell people? Also Kaiser is not the most expensive option.

Is this true? In every place I have worked that offered a Kaiser option, it WAS the most expensive plan offered. And not by a little, but premiums on the order of 2x or 3x more.

That’s interesting we are other options High deductible plans? Kaiser is the cheapest premium for APS employees but it does come with limitations obviously.

High deductible is always the cheapest, but Kaiser was always the most expensive.

Does Kaiser have deductible and co-pays?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was handled poorly and employees can’t do anything about it. We got an apology. That’s it.

Or, APS handled it as any employer would and employees are just mad.
Or, something in the middle. Maybe APS made some sort of deliberate or unintended mistake to exclude Kaiser, maybe they didn't. But the teacher's representative group AEA should have been aware contract was expiring and there's always a chance of changes.
I will agree that holding all the sessions about the insurance/whatever it is the teachers need to do during the school day is ludicrous, thoughtless, and serves Syphax employees' schedules rather than teachers.

There are, as I see it, three possibilities:
1) APS excluded Kaiser by accident (i.e. wrote the RFP in such a way that Kaiser can't or wouldn't bid), and upon realizing their mistake, chose to just go forward and force everyone else to live with it with the absolute bare minimum notice.
2) APS excluded Kaiser due to some misplaced sense of priorities (such as fewer providers means processing fewer payments, less back-end paperwork). That would mean APS places a lower value on keeping the health benefits of 50% of its workforce than on an opportunity to reduce its own administrative burden. In this scenario, APS also didn't feel the need to let anyone know it made this choice until the last possible moment.
3) Kaiser chose not to participate despite APS offering ostensibly reasonable terms it had offered in years past (seems pretty unlikely given that Kaiser is generally one of the more affordable and centralized providers, but we can entertain it as a possibility). In this case APS still failed to let people know what was going on, both to get them ready, and to give them a chance to agitate for Kaiser to change its tune.

In all three scenarios waiting until the open season to let people know what happened is just an appalling management failure. In each scenario, letting things play out like they did just suggests a total clock-punching mentality on the part of Syphax, doing the bare minimum and then just shrugging if things go wrong. And now the burden of that incompetence is being borne by the people who are actually responsible for carrying out APS' mission. Considering our tax dollars go to achieving that mission, people have a right to be unhappy.

Provider changes are a part of life, and happen to lots of employers. But the way this provider change was handled is unacceptable. This is a basic function of any medium or large scale organization and they managed to screw it up. Even if they didn't screw it up (as in scenario 3), their lassitude and failure to communicate turned it into a screw up. You can't expect an organization to accomplish its mission well if it turns a basic function (negotiating providers) into a disruptive event for half its employees, and then can't be bothered to do a to help ease the disruption.

Apologies don't fix that kind of failure. People should be fired over it.

I think there's a 4th scenario: APS was looking to streamline for cost effectiveness. Which is an acceptable and prudent business practice, in and of itself.

You're describing scenario #2. If you want to trim costs, why wait until the last moment to tell people? Also Kaiser is not the most expensive option.

Is this true? In every place I have worked that offered a Kaiser option, it WAS the most expensive plan offered. And not by a little, but premiums on the order of 2x or 3x more.

That’s interesting we are other options High deductible plans? Kaiser is the cheapest premium for APS employees but it does come with limitations obviously.

High deductible is always the cheapest, but Kaiser was always the most expensive.

Does Kaiser have deductible and co-pays?

For APS? Yes to copay, no deductible Iirc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was handled poorly and employees can’t do anything about it. We got an apology. That’s it.

Or, APS handled it as any employer would and employees are just mad.
Or, something in the middle. Maybe APS made some sort of deliberate or unintended mistake to exclude Kaiser, maybe they didn't. But the teacher's representative group AEA should have been aware contract was expiring and there's always a chance of changes.
I will agree that holding all the sessions about the insurance/whatever it is the teachers need to do during the school day is ludicrous, thoughtless, and serves Syphax employees' schedules rather than teachers.

Yeah. There is a group of people (both employees and parents) who assign malicious intent to almost anything APS does. It doesn't matter if it's an HR issue or a policy to cut down on disruptive behavior in schools. If you visit another APS-focused page, you will always see someone mad about something and others jumping on making everything a huge a deal. The difference between APS and other employers is that there isn't necessarily a FB page to give people a platform to air their grievances.

My sister is a MS teacher in another part of the country. She was visiting this weekend when news was breaking about the health care change. She read some of the stuff on AEM and was appalled at all of the teachers' complaints, ranging from calendar complaints to the health care issue and beyond. She also mentioned that she would get in trouble if she posted negative things about her employer on a semi-public FB page. And she is in a union that has teeth and in a liberal part of the country.

People have to deal with insurance changes all the time and have to switch providers and don't get any notice--but their boards and CEOs don't have a public meeting every two weeks where they have to sit there quietly while you stand there and yell at them for three minutes, with zero fear of reprisal because your job is protected.

At my last job--where they literally took away our comprehensive insurance one year and replaced it with a high-deductible plan, and also took away our short term disability option while I was pregnant--I had an "anti-disparagement" clause in my employment contract. I could have been fired for cause (no severance, no unemployment) for saying the kinds of things that get posted every day on AEM.

“Zero fear of reprisal” is not true. Yes, one’s job is generally protected at a bare minimum, but I’ve seen all kinds of “punishment” enacted by principals. Some examples: room changes, repeated and drastic grade level changes, schedule changes that result in more work and less planning time, increased “duty” requirements, formal improvement plans, increased paperwork, the list goes on.

It’s fine to disagree on the health ins. issue. But let’s be truthful and accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

I didn't read it as people can't disagree with him, just he said upfront he isn't going to respond and get into a back and forth on social media. That's fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

I didn't read it as people can't disagree with him, just he said upfront he isn't going to respond and get into a back and forth on social media. That's fair.

He won't respond to you but he'll ask for your $$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

I didn't read it as people can't disagree with him, just he said upfront he isn't going to respond and get into a back and forth on social media. That's fair.

He won't respond to you but he'll ask for your $$.

I support his willingness to be a vocal advocate, but super turned off for the $$ requests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

I didn't read it as people can't disagree with him, just he said upfront he isn't going to respond and get into a back and forth on social media. That's fair.

He won't respond to you but he'll ask for your $$.

I support his willingness to be a vocal advocate, but super turned off for the $$ requests.

I’m not on AEM. Is he asking for money for the healthcare issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

I didn't read it as people can't disagree with him, just he said upfront he isn't going to respond and get into a back and forth on social media. That's fair.

He won't respond to you but he'll ask for your $$.

I support his willingness to be a vocal advocate, but super turned off for the $$ requests.

I'm of two minds on this. It is a turn off but on the other hand teachers never have enough money for their classroom supplies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

I didn't read it as people can't disagree with him, just he said upfront he isn't going to respond and get into a back and forth on social media. That's fair.

He won't respond to you but he'll ask for your $$.

I support his willingness to be a vocal advocate, but super turned off for the $$ requests.

What money requests?

His advocating for teacher pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

I didn't read it as people can't disagree with him, just he said upfront he isn't going to respond and get into a back and forth on social media. That's fair.

After the nastiness during covid I think that's a smart approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was handled poorly and employees can’t do anything about it. We got an apology. That’s it.

Or, APS handled it as any employer would and employees are just mad.
Or, something in the middle. Maybe APS made some sort of deliberate or unintended mistake to exclude Kaiser, maybe they didn't. But the teacher's representative group AEA should have been aware contract was expiring and there's always a chance of changes.
I will agree that holding all the sessions about the insurance/whatever it is the teachers need to do during the school day is ludicrous, thoughtless, and serves Syphax employees' schedules rather than teachers.

There are, as I see it, three possibilities:
1) APS excluded Kaiser by accident (i.e. wrote the RFP in such a way that Kaiser can't or wouldn't bid), and upon realizing their mistake, chose to just go forward and force everyone else to live with it with the absolute bare minimum notice.
2) APS excluded Kaiser due to some misplaced sense of priorities (such as fewer providers means processing fewer payments, less back-end paperwork). That would mean APS places a lower value on keeping the health benefits of 50% of its workforce than on an opportunity to reduce its own administrative burden. In this scenario, APS also didn't feel the need to let anyone know it made this choice until the last possible moment.
3) Kaiser chose not to participate despite APS offering ostensibly reasonable terms it had offered in years past (seems pretty unlikely given that Kaiser is generally one of the more affordable and centralized providers, but we can entertain it as a possibility). In this case APS still failed to let people know what was going on, both to get them ready, and to give them a chance to agitate for Kaiser to change its tune.

In all three scenarios waiting until the open season to let people know what happened is just an appalling management failure. In each scenario, letting things play out like they did just suggests a total clock-punching mentality on the part of Syphax, doing the bare minimum and then just shrugging if things go wrong. And now the burden of that incompetence is being borne by the people who are actually responsible for carrying out APS' mission. Considering our tax dollars go to achieving that mission, people have a right to be unhappy.

Provider changes are a part of life, and happen to lots of employers. But the way this provider change was handled is unacceptable. This is a basic function of any medium or large scale organization and they managed to screw it up. Even if they didn't screw it up (as in scenario 3), their lassitude and failure to communicate turned it into a screw up. You can't expect an organization to accomplish its mission well if it turns a basic function (negotiating providers) into a disruptive event for half its employees, and then can't be bothered to do a to help ease the disruption.

Apologies don't fix that kind of failure. People should be fired over it.

I think there's a 4th scenario: APS was looking to streamline for cost effectiveness. Which is an acceptable and prudent business practice, in and of itself.

You're describing scenario #2. If you want to trim costs, why wait until the last moment to tell people? Also Kaiser is not the most expensive option.

Is this true? In every place I have worked that offered a Kaiser option, it WAS the most expensive plan offered. And not by a little, but premiums on the order of 2x or 3x more.

That’s interesting we are other options High deductible plans? Kaiser is the cheapest premium for APS employees but it does come with limitations obviously.

High deductible is always the cheapest, but Kaiser was always the most expensive.

Does Kaiser have deductible and co-pays?

For APS? Yes to copay, no deductible Iirc

So that is probably why the premiums are higher. I wonder if you look at total cost paid by employee (premiums + deductibles + standard fees) how they compare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't he the union rep? Why are folks shocked when he fights for his members? That is kind of his job.

Exactly.

I agree that he should be encouraged to advocate his opinions.

However, I think it's hypocritical to post his commentary and discourage a discussion. The coffee offer is also so passive aggressive. Translation: You can disagree with my public comments, but not in public!

I didn't read it as people can't disagree with him, just he said upfront he isn't going to respond and get into a back and forth on social media. That's fair.

He won't respond to you but he'll ask for your $$.

I support his willingness to be a vocal advocate, but super turned off for the $$ requests.

What money requests?

His advocating for teacher pay?

He's set up some donorschoose type fundraisers to buy things for his classroom.
First one was an immediate success....therefore we all should have expected more to follow....