Trustees of the Church Pension Group (CPG) continue to study two resolutions approved by General Convention. One would extend CPG benefits to lay employees of The Episcopal Church. The other resolution pertains to consideration of a mandatory denominational health insurance plan.
CPG provides pensions as well as other benefits and services to current and retired Episcopal clergy. Details of the resolutions, and of CPG’s investment performance, are included in the group’s annual report.
The report notes that the “bishops, priests, and lay experts who serve on a feasibility study group have identified four objectives that they believe are essential to a denominational health plan:
- It should bring overall savings to The Episcopal Church.
- It should achieve an appropriate balance between the cost of providing adequate health benefits and the current financial constraints facing The Episcopal Church.
- It should undertake to achieve equity in benefits for full-time clergy and lay employees.
- It should provide for local control so that dioceses have flexibility to make decisions about health care benefits that reflect local polity and preferences.
“While there may never be complete agreement on any proposed solution to control the high cost of healthcare benefits, there is sufficient research, actuarial evidence, and support from within The Episcopal Church to pursue the creation of a denominational health plan,” the report states. “In order to launch a mandatory denominational health plan for active clergy and lay employees, a resolution would need to be presented to the 2009 General Convention, outlining the principles and administration of a denominational health plan to provide the healthcare benefits for eligible clergy and lay workers and their eligible dependents.”
The annual report highlights that as of the close of the first quarter of 2008, total assets had grown to $9.6 billion, an increase of slightly less than $312 million over the previous year.
The report’s “Investment Performance” section points out that during a period of “significant market turbulence and volatility,” the CPG fund outperformed an index portfolio commonly used to judge performance, it did not meet its own goal of a return of 4.5 percent over inflation. Despite the one-year result, the fund remains ahead of actuarial needs, investment goals and index performance over the past three- and 10-year periods.
“Although the fund’s long-term investment performance has been excellent, we are not immune to financial market volatility,” the report states. “While periods of market volatility can be unsettling, they can actually provide attractive opportunities and the fund, as a long-term investor, is in a strong position to take advantage of them.”
To ask questions or request written materials about the study, email the CPG at dhpstudy@cpg.org.
Save 40% when you order The Living Church magazine in its new online edition! New subscriptions are just $24.50 for one year. Current TLC subscribers can add the online edition for just $10 through June 2009. Click here for complete details.
4 Comments
I am a self-employed physician and purchase my family's health insurance, so I know very well how expensive adequate health insurance generally is. I am also a member of our vestry and share the responsibility to direct the temporal affairs of my parish.
I can not tell from the description exactly what "mandatory' means in this context. If such a motion were approved at GC 2009 and implemented by the CPG, would dioceses who already have a less expensive and equally good health insurance plan be required to change to the official TEC health plan?
Would it mandate covering all lay employees? Part-time lay employees? Employees already covered by other (spousal) plans?
Perhaps it means dioceses would be required to force their member parishes to offer the denominational plan or coverage equal to or better than such a plan?
My parish has quite a few part-time employees who have other full time jobs with health insurance benefits. These include our organist, choir director, and sexton. How would such a mandate apply to them?
Would such coverage have to be offered at no cost, or could employees be required to pay a portion of the cost of coverage? Many employers in my area offer individual coverage without a co-payment, but charge some percentage of the excess cost to employees who elect family coverage (generally 30-100% of the difference).
Russell T. Barr MD
I am the project manager responsible for the healthcare coverage feasibility study being conducted by the Church Pension Group at the request of the General Convention. The posting above poses many excellent questions and, we welcome any and all such questions. Attempting to answer them here would require a lengthy response. The article above provides a link to the 2008 CPG Annual report which contains additional information on the status of the study. There are also a number of other written documents available that address many of these questions which we are happy to provide upon request. Simply send an email to dhpstudy@cpg.org or call me directly at 800-223-6602, x. 9405.
Timothy Vanover
Vice President (Project Manager)
With ASA under 750,000 why waste your time? The Episcopal Sect will only be around a few more years. You would be wise to send these funds to The Southern Cone, CANA, and AMiA. Otherwise Mrs Schori will have more funds to raid for litigation.
I am a Diocesan Administrator of a diocese composed primarily of congregations whose ASA is below 100 in small towns and cities. I oversee administration of health plans in this diocese and am painfully aware of the increasing difficulties in providing healthcare to our clergy and eligible lay employees. I have participated in conversations with the Church Pension Group surrounding these issues.
I want to make two comments:
The first is that most mainline denominations provide denominational health plans of one sort or another. It is the Episcopal Church structure that is outside the norm in this area.
The second is only about 70% of domestic dioceses are a part of the Episcopal Church Medical Trust. Other dioceses do their own thing (some more cheaply, some at greater expense, some with lesser benefits, some with greater benefits). I don't believe that the church and its clergy, vestries, and others should be making deployment decisions based on who has a better plan. I know four clergy who have made decisions about calls based primarily on who had a better plan. I know I may be overly optimisitc here, but I would hope the church as a whole would want to have deployment decisions made on the basis of spiritual issues and not temporal ones.