Faculty Beat Doesn’t Know How Health Insurance Works
At the faculty meeting on April 7, 2025, topics discussed included recent changes to faculty and staff health insurance, a proposal to update the policy for auditing classes, and continued concerns about the state of the world.
President Audrey Bilger began by bringing for approval the minutes from the February 17 meeting, which were approved unanimously, as always. For her report, she referenced the FAQ sent out last week regarding the response to recent federal directives and their impacts on higher education, which can be found in Campus News or on the President’s Office page of the Reed website. She encouraged people to check it out if they haven’t already.
Bilger invited Executive Director of Facilities Operations Steve Yeadon to give updates on the Physical Plant seismic upgrades. He reported that Facilities will be updating the central plant system in the boiler room to change how the campus uses energy and improve its carbon footprint. There are currently four boilers, which are not resilient or flexible. The project will keep two existing boilers from 2012 and add three new ones (one small, two larger). This will add more flexibility and result in future de-carbonization by reducing the need to burn gas for heat. Yeadon promised that the project should not disrupt campus life.
Next to speak was Dean of the Faculty Kathy Oleson. She shared that there are a number of workshops from the Center for Teaching and Learning coming up and asked faculty to look at a recent email from Jon Rork. She also reported on the results of the distribution requirements vote! There were 117 votes, and the winner was model 2b (added choice + language). Starting in fall 2026, the distribution requirements will no longer require two classes in the same subject in each group, and there will be a one-unit language requirement as part of Group 1. This will not affect current students or those admitted for next year. More details will be determined next year. Oleson also expressed her appreciation for feedback in response to surveys on topics for the faculty retreat and pre-arrival advising for new students.
Kate Bredeson (Theatre) asked, given the Trump administration’s recent revocation of visas for student activists at other universities, if Reed keeps records of the names of students who have engaged in protest or dissent activities. Oleson confirmed that Reed does not have names in its records, and the college is not going to share any information that they do have. Other colleges have records of students who have been disciplined, but we do not have any students who have been disciplined for dissent activities, and it is not listed in students’ files if they were arrested last year.
On a related note, Charlene Makley (Anthropology) asked if there have been any cases of Reed’s international students having their visas revoked. Vice President of Student Life Karnell McConnell-Black said the International Student Services team is checking regularly but so far has not identified anyone whose visa was revoked. He said that his team has put together a list of legal resources and has protocol in place in the event that something does happen regarding students’ visas. The college will not necessarily provide legal resources itself, but the administration can connect students with pro bono or paid legal resources and alumni who have a focus on immigration law.
Kelly Chacón (Chemistry) gave a brief update on behalf of the faculty Committee on Diversity (COD). They said that there’s complete chaos and entropy going on everywhere and the committee has been using their time to have conversations on what they can do about developments on campus. Chacón reported that the committee sees many little areas where the community is lacking trust. Accordingly, they’ve been working with the staff and student CODs with the aim of building a sense of trust and community, as well as finding places of commonality that they can bring to the president, board of trustees, and alumni. They also offered a “probably silly idea”: we have earthquake drills and fire drills… could we have a togetherness drill? They proposed having everyone go outside to the Great Lawn, have soup, and sing a song.
Next, Vice President of Finance and Treasurer Lynn Valenter had a report on recent changes to staff and faculty health insurance. One key point was that Kaiser Permanente calculated a 23.65% increase in premiums, which they would cap at 20%, for the last renewal period. The college was able to reduce that through a variety of plan changes. (This is the cost that the college pays, not the individual employees.) She said the primary driver of the change is a medical paid ratio of 106%, meaning that Reed employees use their healthcare more than usual, such that Kaiser pays more than they get in premiums. She also reported that HR solicited other healthcare providers in an attempt to moderate costs, but other bids were not better, so Reed needed to stay with Kaiser. She listed presentations, listening sessions, and other communications sent out regarding these changes along with Open Enrollment.
A survey was sent out, which later questions revealed only had about 50 responses, or about 10% of Reed employees with healthcare. One takeaway from the survey was how respondents would feel about switching away from Kaiser: 41% like Kaiser, 35% don’t care, and 25% would be open to switching.
Valenter said that there are annual changes every year. Kaiser initiated direct communication with enrollees this year, due to recent legislation requiring healthcare companies to add more communication when there are changes, according to Valenter. She acknowledged that adding a deductible was a structural change that warranted better communication. She suggested that a deductible won’t lead to a lot of change because it doesn’t apply to many of the most common types of care, and that it doesn’t require paying all at once.
It was not entirely clear from this presentation what changes were made to faculty and staff health insurance, so the Quest reached out to Valenter and two faculty members for more information. Reed offers two different health plans (Kaiser Basic and Kaiser AddedChoice, the latter of which has three variations). According to the benefits summaries shared by these professors, who are on two different plans, costs for a number of different types of care were raised from 2024 to 2025. For example, on the basic plan, the out-of-pocket maximum cost for a family was raised from $3000 to $7500. On both plans we viewed, the co-pay amount was increased a significant amount for several types of healthcare visits. Additionally, the basic plan added a deductible of $250 for an individual/$750 for a family for some less common types of care (it did not previously have a deductible), while the deductible amount on the added choice plan was increased. None of this significantly impacted the amount that employees pay for health insurance, because Reed continues to pay for most of it (all for employees on the basic plan, 60% for their eligible dependents, and employees pay more if they choose Added Choice).
Many faculty members were extremely frustrated with changes that occurred and the way they were communicated. Sameer ud Dowla Khan (Linguistics) shared that they are on the Kaiser Added Choice plan due to their personal situation. They had concerns in particular about the emergency room coverage: last year, their plan covered all emergency room services after a $250 copay. Now, the copay has gone down to $200, but this only kicks in after paying a full $3000 deductible for their family. (Note that this is not the case for the basic plan.) “That means an accident to me or my family could cost me as much as $3200 all at once, which is well beyond my means,” they told the Quest. They also expressed frustration about how emails and this presentation gave the sense that people are using too much of their insurance; they don’t like people being called out as high-use members as if there’s something that they’re doing wrong, when many people have chronic conditions that are not their fault. Valenter said that one of the proposed options was to eliminate the added choice version, which they did not do, and that she’s not trying to say anyone shouldn’t use their health insurance, but just explaining that this is driving increases from Kaiser.
Kate Bredeson (Theatre) spoke at length about her problems with this change, the way it was communicated, and the response when she expressed concerns. She said that a presentation like this should have happened much earlier in the year, and that there seems to be no empathy for how hard the massive increase in out of pocket costs is. “It’s not even a miscommunication,” she said, “it feels like a betrayal.” She also shared quotes from two staff members, who told her that Reed pays less than comparable institutions, and one of the reasons they chose to work at Reed was because of the health insurance. Given these changes, one said, they might consider leaving the college.
Bredeson said that when she raised concerns, she was chastised for not volunteering for the quality of life committee and told to “take advantage of educational opportunities” by going to lunch and learns, for instance, which she said she doesn’t have time for because she always has to work through lunch. “I don’t trust an HR director who insults me in emails in front of my colleagues,” she said. She reported that in early January, after she received an email where many people heard about these changes for the first time, she reached out to Kathy Oleson and Suzy Renn with concerns. Oleson told her to contact Human Resources. When she contacted HR as instructed, Bredeson said, HR Director Heather Quinn-Barron told her, “To clarify, your feedback was not solicited; you offered it, and I agreed to receive it.”
Many other faculty members also shared frustration about how decisions were made based on a survey with only 50 responses and how surveys and other communications were often buried in emails that many people did not see. They expressed how switching away from Kaiser (as HR seemed to be considering) would be very impactful and harmful, that healthcare is not a place to cut costs, that this is effectively a regressive tax that impacts the least-paid members the most, and that this change could be very dangerous. One professor said that they’d heard people say they didn’t think they could go to the ER, which could have potentially lethal fallout.
Valenter acknowledged that the administration could have done a better job. She said that HR had the impression that they’d done better than they could have given their options, and that it was frustrating for those engaged in this process too. Valenter stated that they would do a better job of distributing the survey next year.
Next, Ann Delehanty delivered the Committee on Academic Policy and Planning (CAPP) report. She reminded faculty who are planning to be on sabbatical for the 2026-27 academic year that they have an initial deadline coming up on April 15. Additionally, the faculty retreat will be held on May 28 at the World Forestry Center. CAPP will send out a pre-retreat questionnaire. Finally, she brought a slate of 39 course proposals, which were approved unanimously. The Quest was unable to write down all 39 classes, but they did look intriguing!
Jan Mieskowski, representing the Committee on Advancement and Tenure (CAT), also had a beautifully short report. He reminded the faculty that letters of evaluation of the Dean of the Faculty were due *checks watch* 13 minutes previously, so “those of you playing Tetris on your laptops, stop, put aside your perfectionism, and hit send.” Also, as mentioned at the last meeting, course evaluations will be taking place on Moodle this year. A technical hiccup has been fixed, so professors will now be able to see the overall response rate but not which individuals have or have not responded.
Next to speak was Luc Monnin, chair of the Administration Committee (AdComm). He brought a proposal for a revision to the course audit policy. The last time this policy was discussed was in 1991, and a lot has changed since then. The Quest couldn’t see the whole proposal, but it appeared to include raising the price to audit a class from $100 to $500 for community members and adding audited classes to transcripts for current students. As in the current policy, community members who want to audit classes must apply through Admissions, and faculty can always reject auditors.
Troy Cross (Philosophy) expressed his opinion that we should charge more, because every student talking in a discussion is taking time away from the precious 50 minutes. In his opinion, auditing is an odd way to go about community outreach. He proposed charging “at least $3,000 per class,” though it’s unclear whether this was a serious proposal. Other professors were both in favor of and opposed to charging more.
Darrell Schroeter (Physics) asked if what it means to audit a class is clearly defined anywhere, because it’s odd to figure out whether a student is successfully auditing a class or not in order to mark it on their transcript. Monnin said that it’s up to each instructor to decide. Schroeter also described an odd loophole where students can’t take classes credit/no credit in their majors, but they can audit classes in their major, and asked if we could bring this policy in line with the rules for credit/no credit so that students aren’t preferentially choosing the option that requires less engagement.
Shohei Kobayashi (Music) said he currently has 11 community members in the Reed chorus as auditors, who he can’t bring himself to ask for a fee, and said he wouldn’t have them pay the $500 fee. Similarly, Kate Bredeson (Theatre) said that she thinks there should be an exception for certain classes like chorus or dance, and that adding a $500 fee for chorus members is against our ideals. In order to implement this change, a list of the classes that should be exceptions would need to be compiled. Accordingly, there was a successful motion to table this proposal and return to it at a later date.
Monnin also shared a proposal to remove a reference in the faculty code to the now-defunct 3-year/27-unit graduation option, which passed unanimously and with no discussion.
The final report was from Jason Maher and Nigel Nicholson, on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee on Governance Documents and Processes Update. They reminded faculty of their goals of cleaning up the faculty code, as it has several significant issues: parts are outdated, redundant, should be elsewhere, too low-level, covered by state or federal law, or otherwise outside the scope of faculty authority. They also discussed the difference between policy, procedure, and process. At some point, they will bring a very long document with many changes for the faculty to vote on; the committee is currently working on revising the faculty code chapter by chapter. This will be a multiyear process.
With that, the faculty meeting was adjourned, 15 minutes after the originally scheduled end time. The next (and final) faculty meeting of the year will be held on Friday, May 16. Students interested in attending should contact presidentsoffice@reed.edu.
