[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE EFFECTS OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ON
SCHOOLS,
COLLEGES, AND UNIVERSITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, NOVEMBER 14, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-37
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
Available via the World Wide Web: www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
committee.action?chamber=house&committee=education
or
Committee address: http://edworkforce.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-459 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-000
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
JOHN KLINE, Minnesota, Chairman
Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin George Miller, California,
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Democratic Member
California Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Joe Wilson, South Carolina Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott,
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Virginia
Tom Price, Georgia Rubeen Hinojosa, Texas
Kenny Marchant, Texas Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Duncan Hunter, California John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
David P. Roe, Tennessee Rush Holt, New Jersey
Glenn Thompson, Pennsylvania Susan A. Davis, California
Tim Walberg, Michigan Rauul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Matt Salmon, Arizona Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Brett Guthrie, Kentucky David Loebsack, Iowa
Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee Joe Courtney, Connecticut
Todd Rokita, Indiana Marcia L. Fudge, Ohio
Larry Bucshon, Indiana Jared Polis, Colorado
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Lou Barletta, Pennsylvania Northern Mariana Islands
Martha Roby, Alabama John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky
Joseph J. Heck, Nevada Frederica S. Wilson, Florida
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Suzanne Bonamici, Oregon
Richard Hudson, North Carolina
Luke Messer, Indiana
Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 14, 2013................................ 1
Statement of Members:
Kline, Hon. John, Chairman, Committee on Education and the
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Miller, Hon. George, senior Democratic member, Committee on
Education and the Workforce................................ 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Benigni, Dr. Mark, D., Superintendent of Schools, Meriden
Public Schools, Meriden, Connecticut....................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 27
Jandris, Dr. Thomas, P., Senior Vice President & Dean of
Graduate Programs, Concordia University Chicago............ 15
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
Maisto, Maria, President of New Faculty Majority Foundation &
Executive Director of its affiliated Foundation, Akron, OH. 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Needles, Gregory, L, Partner, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
Washington, D.C............................................ 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
THE EFFECTS OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND
AFFORDABLE CARE ACT ON SCHOOLS, COLLEGES,
AND UNIVERSITIES
Thursday, November 14, 2013
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, D.C.
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in Room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Kline [chairman
of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kline, Petri, Wilson, Foxx, Roe,
Walberg, DesJarlais, Rokita, Bucshon, Barletta, Heck, Brooks,
Messer, Miller, Andrews, Scott, Tierney, Holt, Courtney, Fudge,
Polis, Bonamici, and Pocan.
Staff present: Andrew Banducci, Professional Staff Member;
James Bergeron, Director of Education and Human Services
Policy; Molly Conway, Professional Staff Member; Ed Gilroy,
Director of Workforce Policy; Benjamin Hoog, Senior Legislative
Assistant; Amy Raaf Jones, Education Policy Counsel and Senior
Advisor; Nancy Locke, Chief Clerk; Daniel Murner, Press
Assistant; Brian Newell, Deputy Communications Director;
Krisann Pearce, General Counsel; Alissa Strawcutter, Deputy
Clerk; Juliane Sullivan, Staff Director; Brad Thomas, Senior
Education Policy Advisor; Alexa Turner, Legislative Assistant;
Tylease Alli, Minority Clerk/Intern and Fellow Coordinator;
Jody Calemine, Minority Staff Director; Jamie Fasteau, Minority
Director of Education Policy; Melissa Greenberg, Minority Staff
Assistant; Eunice Ikene, Minority Staff Assistant; Brian Levin,
Minority Deputy Press Secretary/New Media Coordinator; Megan
O'Reilly, Minority General Counsel; Michele Varnhagen, Minority
Chief Policy Advisor/Labor Policy Director; Michael Zola,
Minority Deputy Staff Director; and Mark Zuckerman, Minority
Senior Economic Advisor.
Chairman Kline. A quorum being present, the committee will
come to order.
Good morning, I would like to welcome our guests and thank
our witnesses for joining us today. Today we are going to
discuss how the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act affects
our nation's schools, colleges and universities.
Before I do that though I see a number of faces in the
room. I understand that we have a group of students from New
York. I had the name written down here, because I don't go
around every day saying Mamaronick, but welcome. We are glad
that you are here to see Congress in action.
Okay, since former Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared
we had to pass the President's health care plan to learn what
was in it, we continue to discover disturbing details. We have
learned health care costs are going up, not down. Politico
reports, quote--``Consumers are suffering from sticker shock.''
And the Associated Press revealed, people are being told to
switch to more expensive policies.
Sue Klinkhammer is one of those individuals, a Democrat
from Kane County, Illinois. Sue asks, ``Someone please tell me
why my premium in January will be 356 more than in December.''
A constituent from Plainview, Minnesota, recently shared with
me that her health care plan is increasing more than 200 a
month, and her family's deductible will jump by nearly 1,300. A
couple from Chanhassen lamented a monthly increase of 140,
money that could have helped pay for their daughter's college
education.
President promised insurance premiums would drop $2,500 for
the average family, yet for Sue and many others this is one of
many broken promises. We have learned full time jobs are being
destroyed. A recent resolution endorsed by one of the nation's
largest trade associations warned that employers will try to
avoid the law's punitive mandates by cutting hours and pay,
creating an underclass of less than 30-hour workers.
This statement wasn't issued by a big business advocacy
organization. It is a resolution endorsed by the leadership of
the membership of the AFL-CIO. Other leaders in the labor
community share this fear. The International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, UFCW and Unite Here wrote the law will quote--
``destroy the foundation of the 40-hour work week that is the
back bone of the American middle class.''
Secretary Sebelius dismissed similar concerns as, quote--
``Speculation,'' but I think we can all agree with these union
leaders that the law is leading to fewer full time jobs.
Finally, we have learned millions of Americans will lose
the health care plan they like. Kaiser Health News recently
broke the story of hundreds of thousands of individuals
receiving cancellation notices from their insurance companies;
their policies no longer meet the dictates established under
the law, and we have discovered the Obama administration has
known for years this was going to happen. For families, this
isn't just the lost of an insurance policy. It means losing
access to their trusted family doctor and pediatrician all
because Washington bureaucrats think they know best. President
promised time and again if people liked their health care plan
they could keep it, but millions of Americans are realizing
they can keep their health care plan only if the President
likes it.
Higher health care costs, fewer full time jobs and loss of
current coverage, that is a difficult reality unfolding in the
lives of Americans across the country. The question we want to
discuss today is whether the law is imposing similar hardships
on America's classrooms.
The government take over of health care transforms one-
sixth of our economy. Are schools and campuses immune from the
consequences of the law? Recent headlines show that is not the
case. From the Richmond Times Dispatch, quote--``Obamacare
prompts cut backs for school part-timer's.'' From the Baltimore
Sun, ``Community colleges cut adjunct hours to avoid
Obamacare.'' From Education Week, ``Health care law poses
challenges for Districts,'' and from the Weekly Standard,
``Obamacare Costs One Indiana School District $6 million.''
Over the last several years, we have talked a great deal
about the budgetary challenges facing states, school districts
and institutions of higher education. We have discussed how
Washington can at times make these fiscal problems worse. Much
of the debate has focused on the cost of federal rules,
regulations and mandates that directly intervene in classrooms.
Under the leadership of this committee, the House has taken
action to reduce the federal footprint in K-12 education by
passing the Student Success Act, and I hope we achieve similar
results from Reform of Higher Education Act, both of which will
help ensure taxpayers spend less on bureaucracy and more on
student's education.
However, we must be mindful that federal policies unrelated
to education can still burden classrooms. The health care law
is a prime example. AT a time when we need to recruit the best
teachers, train today's workers for the jobs of the future and
school leaders are trying to do more with less, imposing a
fundamentally flawed and costly law on our schools is not in
the best interest of teachers, parents, taxpayers or students.
I look forward to exploring this issue further with the
help of our witnesses. And with that, I will now yield to my
distinguished colleague, George Miller, senior Democratic
member of the committee, for his opening remarks.
[The statement of Chairman Kline follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Kline, Chairman, Committee on Education
and the Workforce
Good morning. I'd like to welcome our guests and thank our
witnesses for joining us. Today we will discuss how the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act affects our nation's schools,
colleges, and universities.
Since former Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared we had to pass
the president's health care plan to learn what was in it, we continue
to discover disturbing details. We've learned health care costs are
going up, not down. Politico reports ``consumers are suffering from
sticker shock'' and the Associated Press revealed people are being told
to switch to more expensive policies.
Sue Klinkhamer is one of those individuals. A Democrat from Kane
County, Illinois, Sue asked, ``Someone please tell me why my premium in
January will be $356 more than in December?'' A constituent from
Plainview, Minnesota recently shared with me that her health care plan
is increasing more than 200 a month, and her family's deductible will
jump by nearly 1,300. A couple from Chanhassen lamented a monthly
increase of 140, money that could have helped pay for their daughters'
college education. The president promised insurance premiums would drop
2,500 for the average family, yet for Sue and many others this is one
of many broken promises.
We've learned full-time jobs are being destroyed. A recent
resolution endorsed by one of the nation's largest trade associations
warned that employers will try to avoid the law's punitive mandates by
cutting hours and pay, creating an ``underclass of less-than-30-hour
workers.'' This statement wasn't issued by a ``Big Business'' advocacy
organization - it's a resolution endorsed by the leadership and
membership of the AFL-CIO. Other leaders in the labor community share
this fear.
The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, UFCW, and UNITE-HERE
wrote the law will ``destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week
that is the backbone of the American middle class.'' Secretary Sebelius
dismissed similar concerns as ``speculation,'' but I think we can all
agree with these union leaders that the law is leading to fewer full-
time jobs.
Finally, we've learned millions of Americans will lose the health
care plan they like. Kaiser Health News recently broke the story of
hundreds of thousands of individuals receiving cancellation notices
from their insurance companies; their policies no longer meet the
dictates established under the law. And we've discovered the Obama
administration has known for years this was going to happen.
For families, this isn't just the loss of an insurance policy; it
means losing access to their trusted family doctor and pediatrician,
all because Washington bureaucrats think they know best. The president
promised time and again if people liked their health care plan they
could keep it. But millions of Americans are realizing they can keep
their health care plan only if the president likes it.
Higher health care costs, fewer full-time jobs, and loss of current
coverage - that's the difficult reality unfolding in the lives of
Americans across the country. The question we want to discuss today is
whether the law is imposing similar hardships on America's classrooms.
The government takeover of health care transformed one-sixth of our
economy. Are schools and campuses immune from the consequences of the
law? Recent headlines prove that's not the case:
From the Richmond Times Dispatch, ``ObamaCare prompts
cutbacks for school part-timers;''
From The Baltimore Sun, ``Community colleges cut adjunct
hours to avoid ObamaCare;''
From Education Week, ``Health care law poses challenges for
districts;'' and
From the Weekly Standard, ``ObamaCare costs one Indiana
school district $6 million.''
Over the last several years we've talked a great deal about the
budgetary challenges facing states, school districts, and institutions
of higher education. We've discussed how Washington can at times make
these fiscal problems worse. Much of the debate has focused on the
costs of federal rules, regulations, and mandates that directly
intervene in classrooms.
Under the leadership of this committee, the House has taken action
to reduce the federal footprint in K-12 education by passing the
Student Success Act, and I hope we achieve similar results through
reform of the Higher Education Act - both of which will help ensure
taxpayers spend less on bureaucracy and more on students' education.
However, we must be mindful that federal policies unrelated to
education can still burden classrooms. The health care law is a prime
example. At a time when we need to recruit the best teachers, train
today's workers for the jobs of the future, and school leaders are
trying to do more with less, imposing a fundamentally flawed and costly
law on our schools is not in the best interests of teachers, parents,
taxpayers, or students.
I look forward to exploring this issue further with the help of our
witnesses. With that, I now yield to my distinguished colleague George
Miller, the senior Democratic member of the committee, for his opening
remarks.
______
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Continuing the tale of two cities--
[Laughter.]
I want to thank the witnesses here--to begin with--for
testifying today and appreciate your making time for this
hearing. The goal of the Affordable Care Act is to provide
affordable and quality health coverage for millions of
Americans, regardless of whether they lose their jobs,
regardless of whether they have pre-existing medical
conditions, regardless of whether or not they can't afford the
coverage.
The ACA calls on everyone to do their part to make health
care work better.
Individuals are required to take personal responsibility to
purchase health care coverage so that taxpayers and other
policyholders don't have to foot the entire bill when they get
sick. The federal government is doing its part by providing tax
credits to those who can't afford to buy health coverage on
their own. Large employers, the overwhelming majority of whom
are already responsibly providing health care coverage to their
employees, are being asked to include coverage for all full-
time employees.
Hospital and health care providers are doing their part by
finding innovating and low cost--less costly ways to
successfully treat patients. The insurance companies who are
now finally prohibited from skimming off the best risk and
discriminating against those who have pre-existing conditions
are stepping up and competing for customers on price and
quality of services.
The opponents of the ACA continue to claim that the
employers across the country will shift full time workers to
part time just under 30 hours because employer's responsibility
rules. However, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the BLS--since the ACA became law, nine out of 10 jobs created
have been full-time jobs. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data
also contradicts the claim that employers who are shifting
employees just below a 30-hour threshold--there is no data to
support this as a widespread practice.
What is true is, the ACA is helping improve the labor
market by limiting the growth of health insurance premiums,
reducing job lock, providing small businesses with tax credits
for providing the coverage. If everyone does their part we can
transform and modernize the nations' health care system by
tackling the escalating health-care costs by improving patient
access and outcomes across the country, and by boosting long
term economic success of employment in the medical sector.
Local school districts and college, universities have long
been successful partners with the federal government. We see
this partnership in higher education to increase college
access. Because of the leadership of this administration, and
Democrats in Congress, the maximum award of the Pell Grants was
increased 905 since 2008, and the number of Pell Grant
recipients has expanded by 50 percent over the same time,
providing college access to millions of low income and middle
class students across the country.
We see this partnership in K-12 education for elementary
and secondary schools, Congress provided billions of dollars in
extra help to improve school performance through Title I, IDEA
and Economic Recovery Act. We see this partnership in early
childhood.
Just yesterday, we introduced a bipartisan legislation, the
Strong Start for America's Children's Act, a landmark effort to
improve and invest more in early childhood education. Democrats
are also working closely with school districts to oppose the
draconian sequestration budget cuts that threaten and have
already cost tens of thousands of jobs, and to try to make an
improvement in education quality. And now, we see this
partnership in health care.
Schools and colleges are large employers. In rural areas,
sometimes, they are the only significant employer. The ACA is
another opportunity for education institutions, as employers,
to partner with states and federal government to ensure that
their employees have health coverage that keeps them healthy
and hard at work educating the nation's children.
I hope today's conversation will be a constructive one, and
we will welcome suggestions on how we can make these
requirements work fairly for both employers and employees.
Thank you again for your time, and appearing as witness.
And Ms. Maisto, welcome.
[The statement of Mr. Miller follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, Senior Democratic Member,
Committee on Education and the Workforce
I want to thank the witnesses for testifying today. The goal of the
Affordable Care Act is to provide affordable and quality health
coverage for millions of Americans, regardless if they lose their job,
regardless if they have pre-existing medical conditions, and regardless
if they can't afford coverage.
The ACA calls on everyone to do their part to make health care work
better.
Individuals are required to take personal responsibility to
purchase health coverage so taxpayers and other policyholders don't
have to foot the bill if they get sick.
The federal government is doing its part by providing tax credits
to those who can't afford to buy health coverage on their own.
Large employers--the overwhelming majority of whom are already
responsibly providing health care coverage to their employees--are
being asked to include coverage to all full-time employees.
Hospitals and health care providers are doing their part by finding
innovative and less costly ways to successfully treat patients.
And insurance companies--who are now finally prohibited from
skimming off the best risks and discriminating against those who have
pre-existing conditions--are stepping up and competing for customers on
price and quality of service.
Opponents of the ACA continue to claim that employers across the
country will shift full-time workers to part-time, just under 30 hours,
because of the employer responsibility rules.
However, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), since
the ACA became law, 9 out of 10 jobs created have been full time.
BLS data also contradicts claims that employers are shifting
employees just below the 30-hour threshold; there is no data to support
that this is a widespread practice.
What is true is the ACA is helping improve labor markets by
limiting the growth of health insurance premiums, reducing job lock,
and providing small businesses with new tax credits for providing
coverage.
If everyone does their part, we can transform and modernize the
nation's health care system by tackling escalating health care costs,
by improving patient access and outcomes across the country, and by
boosting the long-term economic success and employment in the medical
sector.
Local school districts and colleges and universities have a long
and successful partnership with the federal government.
We see this partnership in higher education, to increase college
access. Because of leadership by this Administration and Democrats in
Congress, the maximum award for Pell grants has increased by $905 since
2008, and the number of Pell Grant recipients has expanded by 50
percent over that same time, providing college access to millions of
additional low-income and middle-class students across the country.
We see this partnership in K through 12 education. For elementary
and secondary schools, Congress provided billions of dollars of extra
help to improve school performance through Title I and IDEA through the
Economic Recovery Act.
We see this partnership in early childhood. Just yesterday we
introduced bipartisan legislation called the ``Strong Start for
America's Children Act,'' a landmark effort to improve and invest more
in early childhood education.
Democrats are also working closely with school districts to oppose
the draconian sequestration budget cuts that threaten the progress
we're making to improve education quality.
And now we will see this partnership in health care. Schools and
colleges are large employers. In rural areas, sometimes they are one of
the only significant employers.
The ACA is another opportunity for education institutions - as
employers - to partner with states and the federal government to ensure
that their employees have health coverage that keeps them healthy and
hard at work educating the nation's students.
I hope today's conversation will be a constructive one and we
welcome suggestions on how we can make these requirements work fairly
for both employers and employees in the education sector.
______
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back. Thank you very
much.
Sometimes, it is, indeed, a tale of two cities, and that is
why we have witnesses--pursuant to Committee Rule 7C, all
committee members will be permitted to submit written
statements to be included in the permanent hearing record.
Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14
days to allow statements, questions of the record, and other
extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be
submitted in the official hearing record.
It is now my pleasure to introduce our panel of witnesses.
First is Mr. Gregory Needles. He is a partner with the
Morgan, Lewis and Bockius, LLP in Washington, D.C.
Welcome.
Dr. Thomas Jandris is the dean of the College of Graduate
and Innovative Programs at Concordia University Chicago, in
Chicago, Illinois.
Ms. Maria Maisto is the founder and president of the New
Faculty Majority in Akron, Ohio, and we are very glad that you
could make it. I--for all of--we know here--you don't know that
she ran into our metro system. And the potential for Web site
jokes is almost overwhelming me, but we are very glad that you
made it.
And Dr. Mark Benigni is the superintendent for the Meriden
Public School System in Meriden, Connecticut.
Before I recognize you to provide your testimony, let me
briefly explain our very high-tech lighting system.
You each will have 5 minutes to present your testimony.
When you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. When
there is 1 minute left, the light will turn yellow, and when
your time is expired, the light will turn red. And I would ask
that you try to move to wrap up your remarks. I am loathe to
gavel down witnesses in their opening remarks, but we do have
some time constraints here.
After everyone has testified, members will each have 5
minutes to ask questions. And I am less loathe to gavel them
down.
Mr. Needles, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MR. GREGORY L. NEEDLES, PARTNER, MORGAN, LEWIS &
BOCKIUS, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Needles. Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller, and
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
participate in today's hearing. I am honored to appear before
you today.
This morning, I am going to briefly discuss the challenges
that colleges and universities face as a result of the ACA.
For colleges and universities, it is mainly what to do with
adjuncts and student employees. Because adjuncts are paid by
the course, they do not fit neatly within the ACA's hours-based
determination of who is full-time versus who is part-time.
While the IRS recognized this in the preamble to the proposed
shared responsibility regulations, it deferred taking a
position.
It did make a passing reference, though, to a comment it
received that an adjunct be credited 3 hours of service for
every credit hour. Because of a lack of follow-up guidance from
the IRS, many colleges and universities have adopted the 3-to-1
equivalency referenced in the preamble.
The result has been that in order to keep an adjunct at
part-time status, and avoid having to incur the cost of having
to provide him or her health benefits, colleges and
universities are restricting adjuncts' course loads to 9 hours
or less. As a consequence, adjuncts' course loads are being
reduced, with a corresponding reduction in compensation.
It is sometimes the case that an adjunct faculty member
will teach courses at several different colleges on a part-time
basis, and, in effect, cobble together a full-time teaching
schedule. Where those colleges may be part of a state system
that is governed by a single statewide board, they may be
grouped together as a single employer for purposes of the ACA
under its control group rules, despite being separate
institutions that are operationally distinct from one another.
The result is that part-time adjunct inadvertently become a
full-time employee under the ACA.
Because of the traditional autonomy of individual academic
institutions, the control group rules really don't work when it
comes to colleges and universities, and accordingly, they
should not apply.
As for students, under the ACA, those who work at their
college or university are employees of the institution, and, as
such, must be taken into consideration when applying the
employer mandate. Most students, though, will be scheduled to
work less than 20 hours a week as part of their work-study
program, and fall within the ACA's part-time employee
exception. However, there are instances in which work-study-
related students might also hold a second job with a college or
university that is not related to work-study the program. And
the hours aren't tracked, such as being an R.A., or resident
assistant, which is what my nephew did at the University of
Richmond to get through school.
If the combination of two jobs results in the student
working 30 hours or more a week, he or she will have to be
counted as a full-time employee, even though the student may
have access to health care through his or her parents' health
plan until age 26, or through an ACA-compliant student health
plan.
There is no need to extend the protections afforded to
other employees under the ACA to student employees, given their
access to coverage elsewhere.
At the end of the day, the issues described above have
created uncertainty among colleges and universities. They have
created challenges for the long-standing business models under
which these institutions operate. What is clear from
discussions with our clients, though, is that they do not
intend to change the model. They can't afford to.
If the equivalency for adjuncts is 3 hours of service for
every credit hour taught, then adjuncts' hours will be cut,
because the college cannot afford the cost of providing health
insurance, or incurring the applicable penalty tax.
If students who work 30 hours or more are required to be
counted as full-time employees, then their hours will be cut.
As a client said to me, the ACA is forcing us, typically well-
meaning employers, to make tough decisions that have negative
consequences for our faculty and our students. And that can't
be what was intended.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the opportunity to
testify this morning. I will be happy to answer any questions
from the committee members.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Needles follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
------
Chairman Kline. Dr. Jandris, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DR. THOMAS JANDRISS, DEAN, COLLEGE OF GRADUATE AND
INNOVATIVE PROGRAMS, CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO, RIVER
FOREST, ILLINOIS
Mr. Jandris. Chairman Kline and Representative Miller,
distinguished members of the committee, I am grateful for the
opportunity to make some important remarks to you.
My name is Tom Jandris. I am the senior vice president and
dean of the Graduate School of Concordia University Chicago,
and the proud namesake of this Jandris Center for Innovation at
the University of Minnesota.
Concordia University is a 150-year-old Lutheran university
based in the Chicago metropolitan area. We serve 5,000
students, 4,000 of which are graduate students, students in 38
states and 18 foreign countries, as well as in the Chicago
metropolitan area.
We are the fifth-largest graduate school in Illinois. And
we serve primarily first generation graduate students. That is,
students whose family has never had another graduate student in
the history of the family come through higher education.
We also represent a predominance of students who are
frequently underserved, communities and populations with
limited access to graduate education.
Our ground-based programs are not only in the Chicago
metropolitan are, but have major concentrations in New York
City, Ohio, Oregon, and other locations of that sort.
Our major emphasis is on programs leading to advancement,
employment, and/or increased earning potential for our
frequently-underserved students.
Affordability, flexibility, and convenience for our
students are major priorities for us, and are the hallmarks of
what has contributed to our remarkable growth.
My college, the largest college at my university, with
4,000 graduate students, is one of the largest colleges in
Illinois providing graduate services to students. We have 4,000
graduate students and 300 undergraduate students,
interestingly, studying in my college who are adult learners,
all the way up, until this term, 78 years old.
We also provide 56 degree and certificate programs. And we
are recognized by accreditors nationally as a 150-year-old
institution.
I mention those data points because they represent the need
for us to have nearly 500 full-and part-time faculty serving
the numbers of students across the world that our university
and my college serve. Only 71 of those nearly 500 full and
adjunct faculty are tenure-tracked faculty members. The large
preponderance of them--nearly 400 of them--are non-tenure-
tracked part-time and/or adjunct faculty, sometimes referred to
as contingent.
We also have 27 staff employees, several dozen student
workers, graduate assistants, teaching assistants, and other
students who are deeply affected by the consequences of the
implementation of the Affordable Care Act.
There are several important unintended consequences of the
Affordable Care Act that impact our programs, students and
faculty. We are already in deep discussions about having to cap
the teaching loads for our part-time adjunct and contingent
faculty at Concordia.
The annual employee cost, if we were not to cap the workers
for these--or the loads for these 400--or 200 faculty members
would be almost $12,500 per year for each part-time faculty
member in the provision of the necessary insurance mandated by
the law. That would result in nearly a million-dollar swing in
additional expense to my college, an expense that we could
little afford. It represents, actually, the jobs of 44 adjunct
employees that we would be unable to provide. That is nearly a
30 percent, or 27.9 percent increase in our overall benefits
expense in my college.
Since we don't get any state aid for the support of my
college, every tuition dollar should go back into our programs.
The CUC will be forced to set limits and caps on the
numbers of hours that can be taught by our contingent faculty,
and thus, significantly limit, even reduce, their earnings.
Some states are already reducing those earnings dramatically,
as has been already pointed out.
But it is not only contingent faculty that will be
affected. It is our students. It is our staff, our custodial
staff, part-time coaches and others who will be deeply affected
as a consequence of the limitation on the numbers of hours that
they can work.
So we are asking for four things from this committee: a
thorough, accurate and detailed review of the unintended
deleterious impact of the ACA on universities, colleges'
faculty, staff and students; second, based on the results of
that review, rules, procedures and definitions be developed in
order to insulate these groups from the dire consequences;
third, that colleges and universities be provided with clear
definitions and standards for identifying employees and others
who may be impacted by it; and finally, at all costs, that the
evolution of the implementation of the law ensure that no
unnecessary or additional economic burdens be placed on
students, especially those who are least able to manage to be
able to afford those increases that we would have to pass on.
Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.
[The statement of Dr. Jandris follows:]
THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND
HIGHER EDUCATION -
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
ANNOTATED OUTLINE OF TESTIMONY
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
WORKFORCE
BY
THOMAS P. JANDRIS, Ph.D.,
Senior Vice President & Dean of Graduate Programs
Concordia University Chicago
Thursday, November 14, 2013
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am grateful for the
opportunity to testify before you today on this important matter as a
Senior Vice President and Dean of a large and rapidly growing graduate
school at a private university. The matters I intend to discuss
regarding the unintended consequences of the implementation of the
Affordable Care Act on higher education are of great importance to me,
to my institution and to other colleges and universities across the
country.
The University I represent, Concordia University Chicago, is a 150-
year-old, private, Lutheran University located in the suburbs of
Chicago, Illinois. Concordia enrolls over 5000 students with over 4000
of them being graduate students. We are proud to be recognized as the
fifth-largest private graduate school in Illinois. Our growth has been
remarkable, especially over the last seven years. One of the reasons
for that growth is that we have refocused our institution's mission on
serving primarily first-generation graduate students and students
representing frequently underserved communities and populations. In our
ground-based, face-to-face instruction program we teach students in 61
separate locations in the Chicago area. We do this in order to ensure
that the opportunity to attend graduate school is as convenient and
cost-effective for working adults as we can make it. We provide similar
services and programs in many states but in particular to high
concentrations of students in New York City, Ohio and Oregon. Our
programs have a major emphasis on leading to advancement, employment
and increased earnings potential for our students. Our programs are
marked by being affordable, flexible and convenient.
Concordia University Chicago is comprised of four separate
colleges. The College I represent is the largest of the four. It is the
College of Graduate and Innovative Programs. As I said earlier, my
College has over 4000 graduate students and 300 adult, undergraduate
students studying in over 56 degree and certificate programs. Several
of those programs are recognized by accreditors and others as
nationally exemplary programs. In my College we employ over 500 full
and part-time faculty. We also employ 71 full-time, tenure-track
faculty and over 400 non-tenure track, part-time, and or adjunct
faculty, sometimes referred to as contingent faculty. We have 27 full-
time staff employees; several dozen student workers, such as graduate
assistants, teaching assistants, and others. As a consequence of our
review of our human resource records and teaching assignments, we have
discovered that nearly 200 of our non-tenure track faculty could be
affected by the 30 hour rule of the affordable care act. Most of my
remaining comments will be focused on the unintended, negative
consequences of the Affordable Care Act, as it currently exists, on
those 200 non-tenure track faculty, students and the College.
First, there is a significant financial burden resulting. Based on
our understanding of the Act and upon the advice of counsel it is
estimated that if Concordia University Chicago fails to comply with the
Act it will be exposed to potentially significant penalties, perhaps
2000 per employee per year. The cost could even be as high as $3000 per
employee per year.
Concordia University, as well as many other colleges and
universities across the country, are working hard to appropriately
respond to the opportunities and constraints of the Affordable Care Act
on our finances and operations. Concordia University Chicago is
currently assessing the impact of putting a cap on teaching loads for
part-time, adjunct and contingency faculty. Without this cap, our
estimate is that the annual insurance cost per identified employee
would be an additional 12,500. Given the number of part-time faculty
who may be affected, that would result in nearly $1 million of
increased employee benefit costs to my College alone. That would
represent a 27.9% increase in our overall benefits expense. If we were
to pass on that cost to students, the tuition increase would be
substantial, especially to those students least able to afford it.
According to the National Education Association, ``Contingent
faculty members get paid little as it is and cutting their work hours
will make it even harder for them to make ends meet. But cutting their
hours could also mean that experienced faculty members teaching
multiple courses will have to give up courses that will be taught
instead by new, inexperienced faculty; that would hurt students by
depriving them of experienced faculty.'' For the NEA to take this
position in admitting the potential deleterious effect on students of
the ``caps,'' is of great significance, we believe. Concordia
University Chicago would prefer not to have to cap the instructional
hours that we make available to our contingent faculty. The impact on
faculty earnings as well as on our students would be painful. Some
states are already reducing teaching hours. Indiana for example has
reduced hours in state schools to 12 per semester for adjuncts and
Michigan has made a reduction to 10 hours per semester.
However, it is not only contingent faculty who will be affected by
the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Concordia University
Chicago will be forced to consider cutting the hours of other staff and
even student workers. In a study recently completed by the Center for
Digital Education, it was concluded that, `` Part-time administrative,
health, custodial, and even students will be deeply affected.''
So with all due respect, I come before you to seek only for
relatively simple things from this committee:
We would like to see the Committee strongly suggest that a
thorough, accurate and detailed review of the unintended,
deleterious impact of ACA on universities, colleges, faculty,
staff, and students be undertaken.
We are also hoping that, based on the results of that review,
rules, procedures and definitions would be developed in order
to insulate these groups from dire consequences.
Thirdly we would hope that the Committee would suggest that
colleges and universities be provided with clear definitions
and standards for identifying employees and others who may be
impacted by the act.
Finally, at all costs, that the Committee help to ensure that
the evolution of the implementation of the Act results in no
unnecessary or additional economic or opportunity burden to be
placed on students-especially those who are least able to
manage them or who have been historically among those groups
most overlooked.
I am grateful and honored to have had this opportunity to express
our point of view.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
______
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Ms. Maisto, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MS. MARIA MAISTO, PRESIDENT, NEW FACULTY MAJORITY,
AKRON, OHIO
Ms. Maisto. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller and
members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to
speak here today. I am very grateful that I could be here.
My name is Maria Maisto and I am the president of New
Faculty Majority and executive director of its affiliated
foundation. We are the only national nonprofit organization
dedicated exclusively to improving the quality of higher
education by improving the working conditions of the majority
of the faculty, often known as adjuncts, who work in temporary,
precarious positions while teaching over half of all
undergraduate courses in higher education. This majority is now
75 percent of the faculty, or over 1 million professors.
Just over 50 percent of college faculty, more than 800,000
college professors, are classified as part-time. At community
colleges, 70 percent or more of the faculty are part-time.
Indeed, at the community college where I teach this semester in
Ohio, the percentage of part-time faculty has grown from 10
percent in 1995 to 76.3 percent in 2009. Adjunct faculty are
paid by the course and the national average compensation is
$2,700 per course.
Many adjuncts teach as many or more courses than full-time
professors, but make less than $25,000 per year, the same
salary, according to one of my students, that a high school
dropout can earn as the manager of a fast-food restaurant.
Only 22 percent of college employers provide health
benefits to their part-time faculty, according to a 2010
survey. Colleges rarely provide sick leave. In fact, most
adjuncts are docked pay for absences. They provide minimal or
no retirement benefits and they frequently block access to
unemployment compensation.
A survey that we did 2 years ago showed that anywhere from
30 percent to 60 percent of faculty in these positions are
assigned courses with three weeks or fewer to prepare, with
scant access to the resources they need to teach like course
materials, computers, permission to be involved in curriculum
decisions, and offices in which to meet students.
Adjunct faculty teach every day with the threat of at-will
dismissal and with little recourse to due process rights we
typically expect professionals to have.
Thanks to the ACA, many adjuncts will now have health care
or more affordable health care for the first time since they
started teaching. However, as you may know, since the ACA has
become law, some college and university administrations have
been in the news for reducing part-time faculty work
assignments or for redefining their work in order to avoid
providing insurance.
Some people would have us believe that the ACA is giving
these colleges and universities no choice but to enact these
policies. I am here to correct that misperception. It is not
the ACA, but rather these colleges' interpretation of and
response to the law that is hurting adjuncts and their
students. Colleges have lots of choices and unfortunately for
their students, too many have chosen not to support or invest
in faculty.
Unfortunately, this kind of policymaking, one that values
misguided notions of labor productivity and managerial control
over the educational mission at the core of higher education,
is increasingly typical of the way that colleges and
universities operate. It is the reason that the Association of
American Colleges and Universities has called contingent
faculty employment practices the, quote--``elephant in the room
of higher education.'' It is the reason that the president of
Colorado State University has made a public commitment to
improving the working conditions of adjunct faculty on his
campus.
It is the reason adjunct faculty are now unionizing in
rapidly growing numbers at campuses all across the country. Too
many higher education institutions have been making harmful
choices for decades in deciding to balance their budgets on the
backs of faculty and the students they serve. Students have
noticed and they are not happy about it, not least because of
the debt into which they go in order to get a college
education.
Yet most institutions still expect adjunct faculty to
donate their time, resources and expertise to compensate for
the support that these colleges have chosen not to provide. Our
operating principle at New Faculty Majority is that faculty
working conditions are student learning conditions. This
principle is why I helped start this organization and not just
because I have taught English composition for more than 15
years, but because my three children are future college
students.
Access to health care is a crucial component of the working
conditions of the majority of the faculty and is therefore a
crucial component of the quality of the student learning
experience. Faculty members who do not have access to health
care or to the other professional supports that all faculty
need, are being set up for failure, as are their millions of
students.
That so many adjuncts do their job so well in spite of
their working conditions, rather than because of them, is a
testament to their professionalism and dedication, but they
should not be in this position.
We hope that the light that has been shined on this dark
secret of higher education as a result of the passage of the
Affordable Care Act will continue to grow brighter and will
lead to the reforms that these faculty, their students, and our
country urgently need in order to ensure that American higher
education is truly of the highest quality possible.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Maisto follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
------
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
Dr. Benigni, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF DR. MARK D. BENIGNI, SUPERINTENDENT, MERIDEN
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, MERIDEN, CONNECTICUT
Mr. Benigni. Thank you.
I would like to thank Chairman Kline, Ranking Member Miller
and all the distinguished congresswomen and congressmen for the
opportunity to testify about the challenges that school systems
are facing with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
My name is Mark Benigni, and I am the superintendent of
schools in Meriden, Connecticut. I am an AASA governing board
member, the co-chair of the Connecticut Association of Urban
Superintendents, and a former mayor of the city of Meriden.
The Meriden public schools are home to over 1,100 employees
and over 9,100 students. Our students come from diverse
backgrounds; 65 percent of our students are minorities and 70
percent of our students receive free and reduced-price meals.
We have received no local budget increase in 5 years, reduced
federal funding, and significant increases in our health care
costs. This has forced us to operate our school system with
less funding for students and programs.
So why are we concerned and why am I here today? At a time
when student needs are increasing, budgets are shrinking, and
state and federal mandates escalating, we cannot effectively
sustain these significant health care expenses. This will cause
us to cut staff, reduce programs, minimize current health care
plans, cut employee hours, and consider outsourcing current
services. It will be our students who lose out.
Beginning in July 2011, the Affordable Care Act required
that we make changes to the benefits covered by our plan and
eligibility rules for who is covered by our plan. Amongst other
items, this includes benefit items such as no cost-share for
preventive care, women's health initiatives, and in-network
out-of-pocket cost limits. Additionally, we are now required to
cover children until age 26, expanding our previous eligibility
criteria by as much as 6 years.
Our health plan administrator's estimate the cost impact
for these benefits and eligibility requirements to range
between 1 to 3 percent of our total plan costs. For the city of
Meriden and the board of education, this could be as much as
$900,000 a year; impact on the board of ed alone, up to
$570,000. To put this into perspective, this equals an impact
of over five teaching positions.
Additionally, our personnel and financial staff will absorb
many additional reporting and communication requirements. While
not having a direct impact on the cost of our health plan, it
will impact our employee workload. These reporting,
notification and enrollment responsibilities include
distribution of health exchange notices, summary of benefits
and coverage, new W-2 reporting, auto-enrollment of members
into the plan, and ongoing tracking of affordability and
minimum coverage. This additional workload could potentially
force us to hire new staff to address these mandates.
Beginning in 2014 and beyond, our community will be subject
to additional taxes to support Affordable Care Act initiatives
and exchange and marketplace costs. The taxes are projected to
be $150,000 annually, costing us two more teaching positions.
These taxes include the comparative effectiveness research fee
and the Affordable Care Act reinsurance fee. In 2018, the
excise tax will have a significant fiscal impact on us, which I
will go into detail more in a moment.
Beginning in 2015, the accessibility and affordability
requirements will require us to offer coverage to at least 95
percent of our full-time employees working 30 hours or more and
their dependents, or be subject to penalties. This will impact
us with our substitute teachers who are not currently
considered board of education employees. Additionally, the
benefits provided by our plan must fund at least 60 percent of
projected costs covered by the plan and the employees' cost for
coverage cannot exceed 9.5 percent of their wages. We project
the costs for us to comply with these accessibility and
affordability requirements to be $1.2 million in 2013 dollars,
worth another 16 teaching positions.
In addition to the fiscal impact are the staffing
implications I mentioned earlier, it will force us to make some
tough decisions around people we have hired. We will need to
intervene with some staff that have elected higher wages for
nonbenefit-eligible positions. We will need to decide if we
eliminate these positions altogether, reduce their hours, or
decrease their wages in order to offer insurance. We will need
to intervene with our bargaining groups over contracts that
were negotiated in good faith. It will force us to make
difficult political and community decisions on deciding whether
we will offer coverage to nonbenefit-eligible positions or
accept potential penalties. The public will want us to explain
why we are potentially accepting penalties in lieu of offering
our hardworking employees affordable coverage.
These new requirements will compel us to make difficult
decisions around plan design and level of coverage. Our current
2,000 single and $4,000 family high-deductible plan exceeds the
60 percent coverage criteria, coming in at 77 percent. When
looking at expanding coverage, if we elected and chose to offer
a low-cost plan option, we would need to raise those
deductibles to as much as $6,350 a single and $12,700 for a
family plan.
Another obvious alternative for us to consider is to limit
hours for some positions below the 30-hour threshold, or hire
multiple part-time people for what have traditionally been 30-
hour plus positions.
Chairman Kline. Dr. Benigni, I am going to have to ask you
to wrap up as quickly as you can.
Mr. Benigni. The cost exposure, if we were to accept
accessibility and affordability penalties are considerable. The
access penalty of $2,000 per employee less the first 30 would
be 2 million for the Board of Education in Meriden. That would
be an additional 27 teaching positions.
If these are all are not enough concerns, the excise tax on
high-cost plans has us alarmed. The excise tax is really a
double hit to us, as the other requirements of the Affordable
Care Act drive up the cost of the plan, which in turn, drives
the excise tax.
I thank you for your time and attention.
[The statement of Dr. Benigni follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED]
------
Chairman Kline. Thank you.
I thank all the witnesses.
I am going to defer my questions, and recognize now Dr.
Foxx for 5 minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the
witnesses for being here today and participating in this
extremely important hearing. We appreciate your taking the time
to do that.
Mr. Needles, in your experience representing colleges and
universities, did the administration's decision to delay
enforcement of the employer mandate for 1 year, provide any
relief to these employers? Did it encourage employers to stop
making business decisions now and wait until mid-2014 to make
tough decisions like cutting hours for their contingent staff?
Mr. Needles. No, our experience has been that it did
provide relief to the extent that they had already started the
process, and they were well down the road. So, they were making
business decisions. That is why they were seeking our counsel
as to what they could do under the parameters of the ACA.
What it did do, though is, instead of having to
accelerate--and there was a lot of fear that they would have to
get things in place by the end of 2013, and how that would
look, particularly with open enrollment that occurs in October
and November of every year. It was a lot of fear that they
would not be able to make all the decisions in a rational way.
So, by extending it a year, that has helped them to take a
more measured approach, but it is not changing the decisions
that they are making. It is just--perhaps the implementation is
getting delayed a fraction.
Ms. Foxx. [Off mike.]--as 61 locations. And it is because
you are delivering education in locations that are nearest to
the students, which significantly increases their ability to
persist and complete their programs. Can you discuss what
impact the health care law may have on your ability to deliver
post-secondary education in this manner?
Mr. Jandris. Sure. Thank you, Representative Foxx.
The 61 locations are not campuses, by the way. They are
rental facilities around the Chicago metropolitan area that we
use on a semester-by-semester basis.
Many of those are staffed by our contingent faculty in the
Chicago metropolitan area. Since we are a completely tuition-
dependent university with a very small endowment, and literally
no state aid coming into our university, every dollar we
reallocate to any other expense is taken out of the
instructional program. And so, if we are forced to absorb, say,
the million-dollar swing that compliance with the Affordable
Care Act would take, we would have to dramatically limit the
numbers of adjuncts we had available to go to those 61
locations.
We would also have to limit our ability to pay the rents
and other related expenses to operating those locations. And I
am sure that the consequence would be a very significant
reduction in the numbers of students who were able to
participate in those programs. Because almost all of our
students--92 percent of our students--are adult working
students. And the accessibility to the location for their
instruction is extremely important to their ability to
persevere in our program.
Ms. Foxx. Well, thank you very much. And thank you for
taking the programs to the students. That is not a totally
unique idea, but certainly for a small school to be operating
so many different places, that is a real testament to you for
doing your best to fulfill your mission, to be where the
students are.
So, as someone who worked in higher education for a long
time and understands that issue very well, I appreciate what
you are doing.
Mr. Jandris. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you.
Mr. Needles, while I think we know somewhat the answer to
this question, if you have some additional insights to us, in
what are you hearing from colleges and universities about the
other long-range concerns of limiting their hours of contingent
faculty?
Mr. Needles. Yes. We haven't been asked that question yet.
Because I think the focus right now is to deal with the
immediate. And that is, to make sure that they are compliant.
And, remember, I think until June or July, they thought they
would have to be compliant by the end of this year, which,
again, meant October.
So, they are still, you know, focusing on those immediate
needs and short-term needs. I don't think they have started
thinking about the long-range planning and impact at this
point. At least, it hasn't been--they haven't asked us to
advise them on it.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady for yielding back.
Mr. Miller, you are recognized.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
This may be the most in-depth discussion we have had of
adjunct professors in the history of the committee. It may also
be the first time we have had this discussion of this matter.
And I am not quite clear yet about the status here.
Ms. Maisto, this rule of three-to-one--is that considered--
and, Mr. Needles, I would like you to respond after Ms.
Maisto--is that policy? Is that--that is the proposal. Is that
being challenged? Or are recommendations being made about how
to deal with this, based on--Ms. Maisto and Mr. Needles?
Ms. Maisto. Yes, this is not a question that has been
settled. We have been involved in the conversation with the IRS
and the rulemaking process to try and figure out the most
accurate way to do the conversion formula to figure out how to
translate credit hours, which is how adjunct faculty work and
full-time faculty work have always been measured--to translate
into hours worked per week.
The problem is that the formula that has been recommended
by many colleges, and, in fact, adopted by my own college, is a
one-to-one ratio. Which presumes 1 hour of work outside of
class for every hour of time you are in class--which is so far
from the reality of what faculty need to do in order to supply
enough quality higher education that it is extremely troubling.
And it seems to be that formula is being used in order to avoid
having to provide insurance.
What we would like to do is have a national conversation
about what adjunct faculty work actually is, what faculty work
actually is. What you need to be able to do in order to provide
quality education. And does--the passage of the Affordable Care
Act has actually made it possible for us to start having that
conversation.
Mr. Miller. Let me just go to Mr. Needles quickly, because
I want to come back to you--
Ms. Maisto. Yes.
Mr. Miller.--for another subject.
Mr. Needles?
Mr. Needles. Yes. It is not a rule or a law yet. It is only
found in the preamble of the IRS's regulations
Mr. Miller. Right.
Mr. Needles.--the three-to-one ratio. But they passed a--
they made the comment that they--well, they said that they
received a comment from somebody. And typically, when they do
that in their preambles, they are sending a signal as to what
they favor. So, in reaction to that--
Mr. Miller. Do you recognize the validity of the comment
they accepted? Or were they just taking--
Mr. Needles. Well, I think what my--what--
Mr. Miller.--was available?
Mr. Needles. What our clients have done is, they felt that
is probably the most conservative approach they can take, and
not get into trouble with the IRS. So, that is the position
they have chosen to take.
Mr. Miller. I was going to say, we haven't had a broad
discussion on this topic in this committee. My personal
experience is, I think I had a nephew that was working in two
community colleges as he was teaching three different schools
within those two districts.
But this kind of raises a question. You know, we have been
here dealing with student indebtedness, the rise in college
cost, the states not holding--with respect to public
institutions, not holding up their end of the bargain, so to
speak, the decline from state assistance of 75 percent to 6
percent in some states, and certainly, single digits in a
number of other states. And at the same time, we see the
discussion of how you earn your place on the U.S. and News
World Report. You have got to build a student lounge, you have
got to build a cafeteria, you have to have 13 different kinds
of food, and you have to have a climbing wall and a 24-hour
exercise center. And then maybe you will boogle up a notch.
So, there are a lot of costs incurred out here in the name
of lifestyle.
Ms. Maisto. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Miller. And, yet, when we get down to the people who
are teaching, as you point out, the vast majority of the
classes, all of a sudden, we got to skimp. I don't--I just
don't--
Ms. Maisto. Right.
Mr. Miller.--the juxtaposition here. And not every college
has embarked on this. And certainly, community colleges, it is
a much different base to do this from.
Ms. Maisto. Yes. Well, you know, one of the things that we
are especially grateful for is that the IRS actually solicited
comments and made it possible for us to explain what the nature
of our work is and how it should be calculated. That is not
something that colleges and universities typically do. It is
very rare for colleges and universities to actually to involve
adjunct faculty in any kind of governance. And that, we think,
is a mistake, because faculty, after all, are dealing with
students every day, and are the ones who are closest to them,
and who know what they need. If they are not supported to be
able to support those students, then the students suffer. And
that is--so, we have been very grateful for the fact that we
have been part of this conversation, and--and that it is really
bringing to light the working conditions of adjunct faculty
more generally, which need to be addressed, and which has been
a problem since long before the Affordable Care Act came onto
the scene.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much.
In my second round, I will ask you another question.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Walberg is recognized.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
panel for being here.
I believe it was Steve Jobs who had a slogan: ``If it's
your problem, it's our problem.'' And I think it is important
for us to hear the practical ramifications of the Affordable
Care Act to our educational systems. And so, thank you for your
insights.
Dr. Jandris, earlier this year, I had the privilege of
hosting a seminar symposium for more than a dozen presidents of
independent colleges and universities surrounding my district
in Michigan. Schools that you may be well aware of, like Spring
Arbor University, Albion, Alma, Mercy Memorial, Mercy Hosp--not
Hospital--University Concordia was involved from Ann Arbor
area, also schools like Adrian, Siena Heights University. And
their biggest concern, as we talked at that time a number of
months ago, was what would be the impact upon education,
students and faculty involvements, but education specifically
because of the Affordable Care Act, which was a health care
issue. And so it is interesting hearing your testimony today.
And so I guess I would like you to expand on what would a
requirement to provide adjunct professors with health coverage
do to your staffing costs in more specifics. And if these
expenses were beyond a college's budget, would this require
them to raise tuition, among other things?
Mr. Jandris. Thank you, sir. As a part-time resident of
Cass County, Michigan, I am very familiar with those colleges
and universities.
I can tell you that Concordia University is not one of
those institutions that has climbing walls in our facilities.
In fact, our dormitories are not even air conditioned. We put
every single dollar we have available into instruction and the
quality of instruction and to serving students where they can
be served conveniently for their purposes.
In our university, the expense of providing what we believe
to be, because the rules are still ambiguous, what we believe
to be would be required insurance coverage to the adjuncts
would actually cause us to have to either reduce adjuncts by
almost 10 percent, and therefore limit our ability to provide
the services that we provide in remote areas now.
We do, by the way, use the three-to-one ratio at Concordia
for what identifies the working conditions of our adjuncts.
Adjuncts are truly the lifeblood of our institution and we
recognize that. But also, we would have to reduce, for example,
technology services. Every dollar we spend one place at our
institution, we have to take from somewhere else.
Mr. Walberg. So we are talking there of quality of service?
Mr. Jandris. Absolutely, quality--
Mr. Walberg. Education and value to the students.
Mr. Jandris.--absolutely, absolutely. And not only the
quality of service, but the availability of service would have
to be diminished.
Mr. Walberg. Dr. Benigni? I hope I said that right.
Mr. Benigni. Perfect. Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. And Meriden, right?
Mr. Benigni. Meriden, right.
Mr. Walberg. Okay. As a former mayor of Meriden, current
superintendent, review in a little more detail how the
Affordable Care Act affected or is affecting your employees
right now. And how has it impacted your budgeting and financial
resources?
Mr. Benigni. Sure. I think a few things. The excise tax, if
we start there, our co-pay plans on single-families and family
plans are already over the thresholds. So that would be a major
concern. Our HSAs with the 25 percent negotiated and agreed
upon with our union reduction, in 2014 would break those
thresholds as well.
Mr. Walberg. And these are agreed-upon plans?
Mr. Benigni. Agreed-upon plans with union members at the
table negotiating with us. And I guess the bigger concern would
be in 2018, it would be a $2.6 million hit to my budget just to
meet the thresholds as they stand now. And that is a
substantial amount of people because 90 percent of my operation
is staff, putting teachers and paras and behavior techs in
classrooms with kids, the money needs to come from somewhere.
Mr. Walberg. $2.6 million--
Mr. Benigni. In 2018.
Mr. Walberg.--one local public school district.
Mr. Benigni. Yes.
Mr. Walberg. Quality and value--
Mr. Benigni. The other thing that we would need to take
into consideration is for some of our employees, we would
actually have to reduce the coverage they are getting now
because they take a low-paying job, but with a very good health
plan. Well, this Affordable Care Act would force us to evaluate
the type of health plan we provide them or look at outsourcing
some of these services as well.
Mr. Walberg. Low-paying job, less care on the health plan
as a result of this.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Yes, the gentleman's time has indeed
expired.
Mr. Andrews is recognized.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for their testimony this morning.
Dr. Jandris, of the 200 employees you are worried about
that you mentioned in your testimony, how many of them are
adjunct or part-time faculty?
Mr. Jandris. That is the number of adjuncts; the 200 that I
am worried about are adjunct employees.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. How many credit hours do they teach per
semester?
Mr. Jandris. There is a wide range of credit hours. We have
several classifications of contingent employees based on the
numbers of hours they take when we do a look-back on an annual
basis. Some of them will teach as many as, in some instances,
24 hours in a semester.
Mr. Andrews. Twenty-four credit hours?
Mr. Jandris. Yes, or eight classes in a semester. We run on
an all-year calendar-year basis, so sometimes--
Mr. Andrews. What would you say the average is?
Mr. Jandris. The average I would say is probably nine a
semester.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. So for those that hit the average with
the three-for-one rule, they are clearly not subject to the
employer mandate. Right?
Mr. Jandris. Well, they may not be. I wouldn't use the word
``clearly,'' with all due respect.
Mr. Andrews. Well, the law is 30 hours a week and they are
at 27 under that. If that becomes the formula, they are at 27,
right?
Mr. Jandris. If that becomes the formula. We still are
unclear as to whether or not we are going to have to count
driving time for our adjuncts and--
Mr. Andrews. I understand. I understand. But assuming that
is the formula, that would be the case.
Mr. Jandris. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. How many of the 200 would then be exempted by
that measure?
Mr. Jandris. I don't have that number right in front of me.
A fair number, 20 to 50 percent. I am not sure.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. Let's say it is 35 percent. Say the
other two-thirds would come in at over 30 hours per week. How
much money do they make for teaching that load?
Mr. Jandris. We actually pay the exact average that was
commented on earlier, which is $2,700 per course for a 3
semester-hour course.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. So if they taught 10 credit hours--no,
per course. If they taught 10 credit hours that were around 3
each, it would be $8,100 per semester. How many semesters do
you have in a year? Two?
Mr. Jandris. I am sorry?
Mr. Andrews. How many semesters in a year?
Mr. Jandris. We teach three semesters.
Mr. Andrews. Three. So if someone taught that for three,
they would make about $24,000 or $25,000.
Mr. Jandris. That is correct.
Mr. Andrews. What do you think we should do to provide
health insurance for that person? How do you think that person
should be able to obtain health insurance?
Mr. Jandris. Our hope is, quite frankly, that after this
kind of discussion, which is so helpful, that in fact the rules
for implementation of the law will raise the threshold to 40
hours.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. So you would not insure them. Who would?
And how would it be paid for?
Mr. Jandris. That is a question I am not prepared to answer
at this point.
Mr. Andrews. Well, I think the country has to be prepared
to answer that question in some way. A person making $24,000 or
$25,000 a year in Chicago, I assume would not be able to afford
any of the insurance products on the regular market, would
they?
Mr. Jandris. I can't answer that question. I don't know.
Mr. Andrews. I think the answer is rather self-evident.
Would you favor a system where that person could go into a
marketplace, buy private insurance, and receive some kind of
tax credit or subsidy to help them buy insurance?
Mr. Jandris. In principle, I would covet such a system.
Mr. Andrews. That is the Affordable Care Act. So, you
wouldn't be in favor of repealing that provision for a person
in that situation, would you?
Mr. Jandris. We didn't ask the committee to discuss
repealing. We asked the committee for clarification and
consideration in relationship--
Mr. Andrews. I understand that, but our work and your work,
too, is about human beings and we are positing here a person
who is making $24,000 or 25,000 a year, who by your account
would not receive coverage at work. Do you think the person
should have health insurance?
Mr. Jandris. I think every American should have health
insurance.
Mr. Andrews. I agree with you. And so one of the ways we
could do that, of course, would be to set up a marketplace
where that person could go buy insurance of their choosing and
receive a subsidy to help them pay for it, which I assume you
think that is a pretty good idea.
Mr. Jandris. As long as it is not paid for on the backs of
our students and the adjunct faculty.
Mr. Andrews. Well, that is okay. That is okay.
Dr. Benigni, is that how--
Mr. Benigni. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. Is the ``G'' hard or silent there?
Mr. Benigni. Benigni.
Mr. Andrews. I admire your public service as mayor, as well
as school superintendent. You are a glutton for punishment.
[Laughter.]
I looked up some statistics about Meriden, Connecticut. And
the local community health center there says that they estimate
that 23 percent of the people of the city are uninsured. How do
you think we should provide health insurance to those families?
Mr. Benigni. I think that is really a discussion for you to
have, but I think for me as a school system leader whose job
and charge is to educate kids, you can't take money at a time
when resources are so thin from students who need that upper-
hand, too. Otherwise, you will continue to cycle a problem.
Mr. Andrews. So, I think you would agree that money
shouldn't come from schools. Where do you think it should come
from to help those citizens get health insurance?
Mr. Benigni. That is really a decision for Congress to
make.
Mr. Andrews. You don't have an opinion on that?
Mr. Benigni. I have a personal opinion, but I am here as
superintendent--
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Andrews. I would be delighted to hear it on the record.
Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I am always a little concerned when Mr.
Andrews does mental math.
[Laughter.]
Dr. DesJarlais, you are recognized.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the witnesses for being here today.
Even before the implementation of the President's health
care law, schools across my state in Tennessee spoke to me
about the weight of bureaucracy and regulatory reporting
requirements from the federal government. Now, with this law,
that burden, you know, has certainly increased and I am sure
you are seeing the increase of those regulatory burdens.
So, instead of focusing on improving student outcomes,
schools are now worrying about how this health care law affects
their teachers, their health care plans, how it affects their
reporting requirements, and even affects their substitute
teachers' hours in the classroom.
So, instead of focusing on providing college students with
the skills and knowledge they need to excel in colleges and
universities, they must instead contemplate caps, teaching
loads for adjunct professors, and complying with more onerous
paperwork and, you know, in some cases even possibly having to
raise tuition, which we talked a little bit about today.
So, I guess, do you feel that this health care law has
helped in any way or hurt your process for educating students?
We will start with Mr. Needles.
Mr. Needles. Well, I am going to have to defer to Dr.
Jandris and Dr. Benigni, because they are on the frontline for
that.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Mr. Jandris, go ahead.
Mr. Jandris. Yes, as I have said earlier, it will have a
significantly deleterious impact on our ability to serve the
kind of students, the number of students, and with the quality
that we are committed to. A million-dollar swing in my small
university is onerous to us in the extreme, quite frankly. It
would result in the elimination of jobs for adults and for
student workers. It would also reduce the locations at which we
could teach our courses, and may have an impact on our ability
to access instructional materials. It would be a very
significant cost for us.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. And so you said that you think all
Americans should have access to affordable health care, but the
big question is how do we pay for it. And ``affordable'' is the
key word there. You know, what we are not seeing with this
health care law is anything affordable. You know, we are
talking about, where does this pot of money come from? We are
17 trillion in debt. You were struggling before this law. You
are struggling more now. And, you know, I don't know where we
are magically going to create this money to provide this
access, but we see a health care law that is failing. It is
failing in businesses, not just in universities, but we are
here to talk today about universities.
Mr. Benigni?
Mr. Benigni. Yes, sure. From a school system perspective, I
think, obviously, we are going to redirect resources to pay for
health care for our employees. That can't be good for students.
Because that means something else has to get cut to do that.
That is why I am here today. That is my concern. I also think,
when you look at the actual employees, some employees are
getting better care than they are going to get when we make
these changes. Some folks have made a decision to take a job at
a low-paying wage because they get a quality health care plan.
But the way this is going to force us to act is actually going
to make us raise their deductibles through the roof and hold
them more accountable for their expenses. And at the same time,
I am cutting services and programs for students at a time when
our school systems cannot weather the storm. I mean, I am here
to tell you that we can't do without. And now, you are adding
an additional expense onto the school systems.
Mr. DesJarlais. Are you in favor of socialized medicine?
Mr. Benigni. I don't--on a personal level, I am in favor of
making sure that everyone gets health care, but I am also in
favor of preventative medicine and some of the programs that we
have put in place that now I am going to have to pay an excise
tax on. That is not positive, either.
Mr. DesJarlais. Of the provisions, which, if changed or
repealed, would provide you the greatest benefit?
Mr. Benigni. That is a great question. Well, I mean, the
30-hour threshold going up to 40 hours would obviously help for
a public school system. Even though we operate two of our
schools at 100 minutes more per day, most of our schools are on
a 6 \1/2\ hour school day. That would help.
And I also think you have to raise the excise tax
threshold. We are already meeting some of them, and the law is
just getting underway. By 2018, that is where I mention, it
would cost my district $2.5 million. Those thresholds need to
go up, because every part of the country operates at different
insurance rates.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay, so the Affordable Health Care Act is
not working for you. It is not working. Is that correct? I
mean, what you are seeing right now, it is not working? It is
creating great headaches?
Mr. Benigni. It is not benefiting the students of my school
system.
Mr. DesJarlais. All right.
And, Mr. Needles, do you agree?
Mr. Needles. I think that it is having a detrimental effect
on the adjunct professors and students and in the colleges and
universities.
Mr. DesJarlais. So, maybe all this talk about scrapping and
starting over, finding a better way would be something we
should entertain.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Pocan, you are
recognized for more than 30 seconds.
Mr. Pocan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, thank you to the witnesses.
You know, I do think one of the things that has come out
for me--and I am glad we are having this conversation in a
district that has about 75,000 students in a lot of different
educational institutions at the higher ed level, plus all the
folks in the K to 12--is the conversation specifically about
some of the employment practices on the higher ed level.
You know, I have been an employer for 25 years. I know
sometimes my rates can go up 30 percent. So, you know, I know
there has been a lot of bad practices. One of the things I am
really excited about the Affordable Care Act is the fact that
we have strong evidence that cost increases are down. In fact,
it is about half of the last 40-year increase just since 2010.
So, I think that is something that I haven't really heard being
factored in some of the conversation today, but I think
certainly should be. Because I had to factor those costs into
my business, just like any of your businesses. The fact that we
are going to have those costs going down looking very solid,
like that is a possibility. It is also going to affect things.
But really, on that employment side--Ms. Maisto, I forgot
what you said again. The percent of people who currently get
benefits, of those adjunct professors? What is that like?
Ms. Maisto. The percentage of adjuncts who currently get--
only about 22 percent currently get health insurance through
their college employers.
Mr. Pocan. Yes, and I think that is one of the big stories
that is out there, is, you know, in Wisconsin, when I looked at
our state government, somewhat through the university system,
there was a growing use of LTE's instead of FTE's. And it was
strictly to get around providing benefits. So, this is a
practice that has been going on for a very long time. It may
have different words, it may have different terminology. The
current attempt to do that is to say somehow, the Affordable
Care Act is causing this. But it has been caused and happened--
is this your experience, Ms. Maisto, in other states, like we
have had with Wisconsin, and east of--things like LTE's and the
other ways to try to get around this in the past?
Ms. Maisto. Yes, absolutely. I mean, colleges and
universities have figured out many different ways of reducing
the benefits and the supports that adjunct faculty receive, all
in the name of cutting costs, in the name of being efficient.
And adjunct faculty have responded primarily by not allowing
their students to suffer. But as a result, they end up
sacrificing their own health, the own families' well-being. And
that is the situation that needs to change, because we are
churning through adjunct faculty, and not supporting them. And
when you don't support the adjunct faculty, you are not
supporting the students.
Mr. Pocan. Yes, especially when you look at what students
are paying now with the rising costs--
Ms. Maisto. Right.
Mr. Pocan.--and seeing that their salary--
Ms. Maisto. And many adjunct faculty have significant
student loan debt themselves that they cannot repay, in part,
because the threshold is 30 hours, and the Public Student Loan
Forgiveness program is also 30 hours. So, when these
calculations are made to avoid providing health insurance, they
also don't--they are able to pay their student loans.
So, that is a problem. And so, the solution really is for
colleges and universities to fairly calculate the work hours of
adjunct faculty, to do it accurately, according to standards
that ensure quality education, not according to standards that
are designed to avoid mandates that are going to be good for
adjuncts and for students.
Mr. Pocan. Sure. And then you add the complexity of--just
as we have asked the panel, everyone should get health care. I
agree with you.
Ms. Maisto. Yes.
Mr. Pocan. But the answer, I think--at least Congress has
tried--has been the Affordable Care Act. And the lack of other
ideas as we have asked that question is part of, I think, the
problem that we are trying to face soon as we look at the cost
savings other things that can happen.
Let me switch gears just a little bit, Dr. Benigni. I think
we are going all going to learn that word by the end of the
day--your name and how to say it.
A question on the sequester. Because, obviously, I look at
my school district. I have got about half the kids in my
biggest school district in my district on free and reduced
lunch. You have got 70 percent. You are obviously getting some
big hits from the sequester.
What have you done in order to address those hits that you
are getting right now? Are you letting staff go? What are you
doing to absorb that?
Mr. Benigni. Sure. And, obviously, to talk about the
sequester, it would be take much more time, and I would be cut
off, for sure. But in general--
Mr. Pocan. How about just the simple part? Have you had to
let people go? And, specifically, what have you done--
Mr. Benigni. What we have done is, we have redesigned our
special education operation, and we have many more in-district
programs operating. But the way I did that is by hiring
behavior techs and non-bargaining employees to support the
effort. Now, those employees now are going to be the same
employees that I hired to deal with the cuts that came with
sequestration. Those are now going to be extra benefits. So, I
am going to weigh the benefit of bringing students back in
district--
Mr. Pocan. Sure.
Mr. Benigni.--and doing what is best for students with--
Mr. Pocan. Yes, if I can just reclaim my time--so what it
sounds like is, you found ways to shift the thin. So, not
necessarily cutting off employees. So, like, if you did have
different costs in health care, there are other things you can
do within to try to address it.
The sequester, as I look at it, is, you know--and your
state is one of the higher states that is getting those cuts--
your district is 70 percent. They are certainly more of this.
Mr. Benigni. It is a fraction of what this would cost me
what the sequester was. You are talking about--
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired. So, you
get more than 30 seconds, but not more than 5 extra.
Mr. Rokita?
Mr. Rokita. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank the witnesses.
Dr. Benigni, continue on with your answer. Sequester--how
much of the problem--
Mr. Benigni. Sure. And I didn't come prepared to talk a lot
about sequester, but sequester cost our district about 300,000.
The concerns with this is far greater than that, but some of
the ways we marginalized that impact--we did look to redesign.
But, you know, as I expressed in my opening remarks, we have
had no increase from our local municipality. We have had
decreased funding. It is pre-2004 levels from the federal
government. There is only so much creative juice in any
district. And I have a great team that I work with.
Mr. Rokita. All right.
Mr. Benigni. But this would be substantially more
concerning to me than even what the $300,000 cost our district.
Mr. Rokita. Great. Thank you.
And continuing on with you, Dr. Benigni, what are your
teachers saying about what is commonly known as Obamacare?
Given all the testimony that has come out today, surely, there
has been talk in the faculty lounge.
The President's experience before he came to office--you
would think that Obamacare came from a faculty lounge.
Mr. Benigni. Yes.
Mr. Rokita. What are they saying about Obamacare?
Mr. Benigni. Well, you know, I have a terrific relationship
with our union. We are switching everyone to health savings
accounts. It is--save 25 percent on every plan. We helped feed
those accounts initially with some funding to get them started.
We--
Mr. Rokita. Do they know that health savings accounts are--
do they know that health savings accounts are de-incentivized
under Obamacare?
Mr. Benigni. I think the public school sector is just
waking up to some of this data right now. I don't think--
Mr. Rokita. Dr. Jandris, same question.
Mr. Benigni. I won't be the last person to talk to you
about this.
Mr. Rokita. Great, thank you.
Dr. Jandris, same question to you. What are your teachers
saying about Obamacare?
Mr. Jandris. Yes. Well, obviously, our full-time faculty
are not as deeply affected by it, but they are worried about
the impact on our overall enrollment. Our adjunct faculty--
because we tend to be a university that treats our adjunct
faculty several steps better than many universities do--are
very concerned about it. They--almost all of our adjuncts--the
vast majority of our adjuncts have insurance through other
sources--through spouses, through retirement plans and other
sorts of things.
Mr. Rokita. Yes.
Mr. Jandris. And so--
Mr. Rokita. I wanted to go on--if you don't mind me
interrupting you on that line of questioning--there has been,
by another congressman, some mention made about how your
adjunct folks make $24,000 a year. How can we expect them to
survive in society? Talk to me about the average profile of one
of your adjunct professors? Talk to me about how they came to
be an adjunct professor? If they have supplemental income? If
they did in the past? What their average age is? How many are
married? How many might be on other people's insurance?
Mr. Jandris. I don't have all the detail around that. I can
tell you that 15 percent of our adjuncts only are what you
would call ``career adjunct workers.''
Mr. Rokita. How much?
Mr. Jandris. 15 percent.
Mr. Rokita. Right.
Mr. Jandris. The others of them are second-career adjuncts,
or people who are spouses of others who are covered under
family packages of their spouses.
Mr. Rokita. Do they--are they adjunct professors primarily
for the money, in your opinion?
Mr. Jandris. Among that 15 percent?
Mr. Rokita. No, no, no, among the 85 percent.
Mr. Jandris. Yes. No, no, they are not in it for the money,
they are in it because they love education.
Mr. Rokita. And they love teaching what they have learned
through a lifelong experience, I imagine.
Mr. Jandris. Absolutely.
Mr. Rokita. Right, and/or teaching.
Dr. Benigni, why do your teachers teach?
Mr. Benigni. Our teachers teach because they love kids, and
they believe that having a positive impact on kids is the
greatest reward you can have in any career.
Mr. Rokita. Dr. Benigni, why do you think schools exist?
For teachers or for students?
Mr. Benigni. Schools exist for students. They are at the
heart and center of our work. Schools exist to make sure that
we have a citizenry that can continue to support and make this
the greatest nation in the world.
Mr. Rokita. Dr. Jandris, why do schools exist?
Mr. Jandris. Same answer.
Mr. Rokita. Mr. Needles, witness Maisto made mention about
the, quote--``dark secret,'' unquote, which I took to mean the
balancing of these budgets on the backs of the adjunct
professors. Do you have any comment in reaction to that?
Mr. Needles. I am not sure whether it is a dark secret or
not. It has been a form of doing business in the higher ed
world--
Mr. Rokita. The idea of balancing a budget, you mean?
Mr. Needles. Just using adjuncts to supplement full-time
professors and to supplement the staff. That has been a model
that has been in place for years.
Mr. Rokita. Okay.
I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Holt, you are recognized.
Mr. Holt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I hear from constituents back in New Jersey, some letters
here in front of me, of teachers who are talking about this
problem. But they are not talking about what the multiplier
should be. They are talking about how can we have health care
coverage for our family. And I would hope that this hearing and
other discussions would be not so much about how things might
not work, but in fact how we can get adequate, excellent health
care for all Americans.
I hear some talk about an idealized world here where gladly
would they learn, gladly would they teach for free. Well, I
don't think that is the world. I would like to explore for a
moment the real world we are living in. Mr. Miller said or
implied that it would be good to have some hearings on how
teaching actually is done now.
So, Ms. Maisto, we just heard that part-time--there is a
long pattern of using adjunct professors to supplement the
full-time faculty. Tell us again what is the fraction of
teaching that is done by adjunct faculty now.
Ms. Maisto. Right. Faculty who are contingent now number 75
percent of the faculties. Fully 50 percent are part-time and
the additional 25 percent are full-time--
Mr. Holt. And why do you think colleges and universities
are increasingly relying on part-time, adjunct faculty?
Ms. Maisto. Well, it has been very clear. It is the
business model that has been adopted in order to cut costs at
the expense of the well-being of these faculty and at the
expense of student outcomes.
Mr. Holt. It is dominant or almost dominant, not just
supplemental.
Ms. Maisto. Absolutely--the majority.
Mr. Holt. Can you describe the major differences in wages
and benefits, particularly in health care, between full-time
faculty and adjunct or part-time faculty?
Ms. Maisto. Sure. Adjunct faculty make anywhere from about
a third of what full-time faculty make; rarely have access to
benefits. Although I have to say that there are many colleges
and universities that have taken it upon themselves to provide
health insurance to their adjunct faculty, recognizing that is
an important component of the working conditions they need.
Mr. Holt. It is about a quarter of them, I understand, or
something like that.
Ms. Maisto. Right. So, yes, and generally in unionized
environments, there is health care.
Mr. Holt. Now, I think you gave a figure about how over a
15-or 18-year period at least one community college that you
are familiar with, how that percentage between full-time and
part-time has changed. Would you give us that again, please?
Ms. Maisto. Sure. At my community college in Ohio, we went
from 10 percent part-time in 1995 to 76.6 percent part-time in
2009.
Mr. Holt. So, 18 years ago, those 90 percent that were
full-time, did they have health care coverage?
Ms. Maisto. Yes, they did.
Mr. Holt. And what fraction now of the teaching force has
health care coverage?
Ms. Maisto. At my college, only about 25 percent.
Mr. Holt. Okay. So that, I would offer to this committee,
is the issue, not what the multiplier is, but how it seems that
in these employers, like other employers around the country,
are finding it difficult to offer the health care coverage. But
more important, the families of these workers, these teachers,
need it.
So, rather than talking about how the system might not work
in some future case when a certain multiplier is approved, I
would prefer to talk about how it is not working right now and
how something like the Affordable Care Act, an honorable
attempt to see that we have got affordable, excellent health
care for all Americans, should be the focus of a discussion
about how it is going to work, how we can make it work, rather
than how it isn't working.
We have a perfectly good model. One of my colleagues across
the aisle says, ``Well, it is not affordable now.'' We have
shown in my colleague's state here of Massachusetts, where we
can get 99, 98 percent coverage, something like that, of all
people and they are doing it. We should be looking for ways to
make that work. And we have a reasonable way that we have been
working on for several years now.
And so, the issue is not what is the multiplier in this
sector of employment in colleges. It is, rather, the issue is
how are we going to get affordable, excellent health care for
all Americans.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Let me just start off by saying that the problem with
health care in this country is it costs too much. If it was
affordable, everybody would have it. So that is the problem. It
costs too much. And we do need to increase access to care in
this country and we can talk about what is happening right now.
Let me share with you a passion that I have, medical
education. Vanderbilt University, one of the great
universities, I hope they play a lousy football game Saturday
against U.T., but one of the great universities in this country
this year has had to reduce their jobs by 1,300 in Nashville,
Tennessee. They have also reduced their medical school class by
10 percent and their M.D. Ph.D program, which are our future
researchers that are going to find the cures for cancer, by 10
percent. That is devastating when you see that, for me, as an
educator.
And I did serve as an adjunct faculty. And I did believe my
Hippocratic oath. I taught medical students and residents for
25 years with no pay because I thought I ought to give that
back, that knowledge that I had back. And I know that is what a
lot of teachers do, a lot of teachers who are adjunct.
Ms. Maisto, I agree with a lot of the things you have said
today, by the way. I think colleges need to take a re-look. And
I always worried about not having health benefits and
retirement benefits and teaching for years. And I think that
needs to be looked at. I agree with a lot of the things you
have said.
I want to shift to Dr. Benigni. I think with you being a
mayor, I am a former mayor myself. And you have had to look at
people and decide whether to raise their taxes; how to provide
certain things at your school system. We have a school system
almost exactly the size--the community I am from, 60,000
people, almost 8,000 students, same as you have. And we
provided health insurance for our bus drivers so we could get
better bus drivers that just drove part-time.
We have having to re-look those things. And things that are
not--it is a matter of numbers about what can I afford to
provide. And what you have done is you have had to make some
decisions in your executive position as a school superintendent
about how do I provide a quality product, which is the
education of my students, and yet how do I pay for it all?
And as you pointed out, the local community hasn't been
able to provide you any more resources in 5 years, and yet you
have now got a new mandate from the federal government to
provide certain things you can't pay for.
So, and I think one of the things that you haven't
mentioned that your city is going to have to do if it is self-
insured, and I am sure it is, most are, is that you are going
to have a 63 per person, not per family, but per person fee, a
reinsurance fee that is going to cost my city of Johnson City,
Tennessee 177,000 for which they get absolutely nothing for.
Nothing. They are already providing it.
And we talk about affordable coverage, I looked at one of
my employees who works for me in the Congress right now, works
for me in Tennessee. She has a $55,000 or $56,000 a year
employee, making $50-something thousand dollars a year, which
were we live is above the per capita income, and her cost is
going to be almost 20 percent of her yearly income to buy
insurance that is supposed to be affordable.
And I think that is the real problem is the cost; is how do
we get the cost down. And right now, this plan, I can see maybe
some people will benefit from lower costs, but many people are
going to be paying a lot more. And it is going to be paying a
lot more because of the mandates that came along that you are
having to deal with.
And I would like to have your comments about it. I think
that is what you were talking about. And as a former mayor, I
got tired of any kind of mandate that came down from the
federal government, whether it was health care or water runoff
or whatever it may be.
Mr. Benigni. Yes, I mean, as a superintendent, of course we
want to provide for our employees. But at the same time, my
charge is to provide for my students. And at a time when the
local resources aren't there, there are reduced federal
resources, something has to give. The last thing I need right
now is another mandate and another expense because it will
impact the enrichment programs. It will impact class size,
which I already run elementary class sizes at 25-plus. I have
some at the 29 and 30 level.
I have a poverty rate that only increases every year. We
are to a breaking point. It is not a question of whether we
want to. It is a question of affordability. And I can't tell
you how to do it. I can tell you that is not going to be good
for our students in Meriden if we continue on the road we have.
I think we need to look at the thresholds right away and we
should look at the hours and raise that up to 40 hours. And I
think those are two quick things that would help us right away.
Mr. Roe. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Polis, you are recognized.
Mr. Polis. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a first question is for Ms. Maisto or Mr. Jandris,
maybe give you both the opportunity to talk about. I have heard
from two major universities, public universities in my
district, Colorado State University and the University of
Colorado at Boulder, and many adjunct faculty are part-time
employees who are paid per course they teach. How would you
recommend the universities determine whether their adjunct or
part-time faculty are achieving the equivalent of 30 hours per
week? And what strategies are your institutions undertaking? Or
can I pass along this recommendation to them?
We will go to Ms. Maisto first.
Ms. Maisto. I am sorry, I didn't hear the first part of the
question.
Mr. Polis. How would you recommend universities determine
whether their adjunct or part-time faculty are achieving 30
hours a week? And what strategies are they undertaking?
Ms. Maisto. Sure. We believe that certainly adjunct faculty
need to be a part of the conversation.
Mr. Polis. Meaning that they are paid per course?
Ms. Maisto. Right.
Mr. Polis. They are not paid per hour. So what is the best
way internal to university operations to, if they are paid by
course, not per hour, how are you determining are they meeting
the 30 hours?
Ms. Maisto. To figure out the conversion formula, you mean?
Mr. Polis. That is right.
Ms. Maisto. Yes. We believe that it is important that
adjunct faculty be able to report honestly and truthfully the
amount of time that it takes to do the work of educating
students.
We believe that disciplinary organizations ought to be
involved. The Modern Language Association, which is the
disciplinary association for English teachers, has recommended
a minimum of $7,000 per course for people teaching in that
field, based on the amount of work that is required to do the
job properly.
Mr. Polis. How do you decide what is work? I mean, so,
obviously, lecturing, that is work. I am sure grading papers is
work. But keeping up with current developments in the field and
reading journals--
Ms. Maisto. Absolutely. Keeping up with current--
Mr. Polis.--is that work?
Ms. Maisto.--developments in the field--
Mr. Polis. I mean--you know.
Ms. Maisto. But a huge amount of the time that adjunct
faculty, that all faculty need to spend is time mentoring
students. That is what students always crave, it is what they
always ask for.
And so, those of us who are especially teaching
disadvantage students, students who are under-prepared, that
one-on-one time is critically important for helping those
students succeed.
But I have had to tell my students this semester, for
example, that I cannot meet with them because my college has
told me that I only work 1 hour outside of class for every hour
I am in class.
So my students are suffering as a result of that
calculation, which is simply not accurate.
Mr. Polis. And, Dr. Jandris, what would you, again,
recommend how universities are determining adjunct or part-time
faculty that are paid by the course are achieving the
equivalent of 30 hours a week?
Mr. Jandris. Well, as a former adjunct faculty member
myself, I actually agree in principle with most of which--with
which Maisto has said, quite frankly.
We certainly would never consider a 1:1 ratio from credit
hours to numbers of hours worked. I mentioned before we use a
3:1 ratio at Concordia. And, in fact, that is light. If we
could afford to provide more, we would.
I am not sure 7:1 is the right ratio. But somewhere
between--
Mr. Polis. Is that 3:1 just based on their, like, classroom
lecturing time--
Mr. Jandris. No.
Mr. Polis.--or would it include office hours?
Mr. Jandris. No, it is assuming student contact hours
outside of classes--
Mr. Polis. Okay.
Mr. Jandris.--preparation time--
Mr. Polis. And then multiplying that times three.
Mr. Jandris. We have the additional complexity at Concordia
of actually asking our adjuncts to drive considerable distance
to these 61 locations I was talking about. And there is a
question about whether or not that time should be considered in
there, too.
The raising, as one of my colleagues here said, the raising
of the threshold to 40 hours would actually solve a lot of this
for us, because we would be in a position then to be able to be
more generous in the counting of these hours in a way that
could accommodate for those faculty who reach those thresholds.
Mr. Polis. Great. Let me move over to the student side,
again, question is to both of you.
I want to ask whether your institutions self-fund student
health insurance plans. As you know, self-funded student health
plans are not subject to the same types of consumer protections
and requirements in the Affordable Care Act.
But if self-funded plans do meet the requirements, they can
then be considered minimal essential coverage for students.
So how have your institutions approached self-funded plans
to ensure the students have insurance that meets their needs,
for what--we just have about 20 seconds, so I guess we will go
to Dr. Jandris first.
Mr. Jandris. Yes. We at this point have not been forced
into a position in our planning to consider modifying our
student health plan, at this point.
Mr. Polis. Ms. Maisto?
Ms. Maisto. Sure. For my institution, I would have to get
back to you on that.
Mr. Polis. Okay. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentleman.
Mr. Barletta, you are recognized.
Mr. Barletta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back in Pennsylvania last week, I hosted a higher education
roundtable in the northern end of my district with higher
education leaders from all sectors.
And a common theme that I heard was that Washington
continues to pile on burdensome regulations and reporting
requirements at the same time we come back and we tell our
institutions of higher education that they need to address the
rising cost of college. Yet, we continue to burden them with
these requirements.
And the administrative burden of the Affordable Care Act
will be substantial, as we heard today.
Dr. Jandris, you know, I am concerned about the non-
traditional student, which I believe is becoming the
traditional student.
Mr. Jandris. Absolutely.
Mr. Barletta. You know, the student that has to work during
the day because they are supporting a family and can only go to
class at night.
And I know our colleges around the country are trying to
accommodate them so that they can get an education, so that
they can take care of their families and support their
families.
My question is, what would be the impact on the non-
traditional student, since so many of those classes will be
taught by adjunct faculty members?
Mr. Jandris. And thank you for asking the question. You
just described 85 percent of my student body.
And the reality is that it could result--the full
implementation of this under the current projected standards of
30 hours could, actually, force us into a position of having to
increase tuition by as much as 20 percent.
That 20 percent burden, on many of the students who we
serve, who are the adult, working, underserved students of
color, in particular, especially in the urban centers, would
simply break their backs.
Our comments are not about whether or not our faculty
should have insurance. Our comments are about whether or not
that insurance should be provided by further limiting access to
higher education to students who have been underserved for so
many decades.
Mr. Barletta. So many individuals may not be able to afford
to go to college.
Mr. Jandris. Absolutely.
Mr. Barletta. Or you may have to cut back on some classes.
Mr. Jandris. A very substantial number of our students
could never absorb a 20 percent increase in our tuition.
Mr. Barletta. And let me--
Mr. Jandris. And we have no other pot from which to draw
those resources.
Mr. Barletta. I think the theme is pretty clear here today.
And we are really getting back to the same theme here, is
that--and, you know, yesterday, I learned at a Homeland
Security Committee hearing how the cyber side effects of the
Affordable Care Act--will--affect us, how Americans' personal
information will be at risk through hackers of the Web site or
how convicted felons could be hired as navigators.
And today, we are hearing how our education system will be
impacted.
You know, this reminds me of an old saying that sometimes
the medicine is more harmful than the disease.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Fudge, you are recognized.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
I thank you all for being here.
Ms. Maisto, thank you so much--from my hometown. Let me
just for the record as well say that I am a former mayor as
well, and no one had to mandate to me how to treat my
employees. I treated them with respect and dignity and worth,
and provided health care for every single one of them.
Mr. Benigni, you have used the number 2 million more than
once about the impact that the Affordable Care Act would have
on your institution. Where do you get that number from?
Mr. Benigni. It is on your exhibit, excise tax on high-cost
health plans exhibit. It is the tax impact, total--
Ms. Fudge. Well, I know that. Who provided that
information, that date?
Mr. Benigni. Our health consultant, who works with the city
and the board of education.
Ms. Fudge. Yes, because I don't think that information is
quite accurate, because I think it is based upon the excise
being on the total amount and not the $1 above. I think that is
incorrect. And I am not gonna argue with you because I haven't
had the time to go through it.
But let me just ask you this one question, Dr. Jandris. You
indicated to my colleague that most of the people who teach in
your institution do so because they love teaching. They don't
do it for the money. Why do they take a check?
Mr. Jandris. As I said earlier, the vast majority of them
are in higher education, teaching in an adjunct role, as a
second career.
Ms. Fudge. That is not my question. If they don't do it for
the money, why do they take the money?
Mr. Jandris. They take the money because they use it to
supplement their already meager--
Ms. Fudge. Oh, so they do need the money. That is the point
I was trying to get to.
Let me just ask you, as we talk about the fact that in some
institutions 75 percent of the professors are adjunct, we talk
about the fact that they make, some of them, less than 25,000 a
year. Some of them use other government benefits, like SNAP
and/or other things.
Can you tell me what affect, if any, does the financial
need of these adjunct professors have on the quality of the
education they provide?
Ms. Maisto. Sure. Absolutely. I can tell you from personal
experience when my husband lost his job and I had to try to
support my entire family as an adjunct professor, I did not
have the time available for my students. I did not have the
time available to meet with them, to prepare adequately.
The stress of having almost no resources certainly had an
impact on my state of mind and my ability to do my job well.
The salaries of adjunct faculty ought to be determined not
by whether they have outside employment or other sources of
finances. What it really should be determined by is the nature
of the work and how much we value the work.
And right now, what we are telling our public, what we are
telling students is that this work is supplemental. It is not
important. It is not critical.
And that in itself is a major--has a major deleterious
impact on the quality of education.
We have done studies on what these circumstances of adjunct
faculty do to the quality of education. There is a center at
the University of Southern California that has been studying
this carefully and has concluded that there is a real need for
major reform in adjunct faculty working conditions, beginning
with compensation, including health insurance and other
professional supports.
Ms. Fudge. Thank you very much.
And my last question, actually, and it is to the other
three, not Ms. Maisto, you all indicated that you believe
everyone should have health care, but we should not do it on
the backs of students. And I agree, to some degree.
So where do you think it should come from? How do we pay
your health care? Doesn't that come out of money that should go
to students as well? Please? All three of you gentlemen.
Mr. Jandris. I didn't hear the last part of your question,
ma'am.
Ms. Fudge. Does not your health care come out of resources
that should also maybe go to students, if that is your
philosophy, that we should not use resources that could go to
the classroom to pay for health care?
Mr. Needles. Well--well, I pay my insurance fully. So.
Ms. Fudge. Okay. Mr. Jandris?
Mr. Jandris. Yes, and for years, I have paid my own
insurance personally too, and foregone charging it to the
university.
Ms. Fudge. Good.
Mr. Benigni. We have budgeted expenditures.
Ms. Fudge. Oh.
Mr. Benigni. You are now asking us to take on a burden and
not giving the resources--
Ms. Fudge. That is not the answer to my question, sir.
Mr. Benigni. .., to take on the burden.
Ms. Fudge. What is the answer to my question?
Mr. Benigni. That is the answer to the question.
Ms. Fudge. No, it is not an answer.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Messer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Messer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
and the entire team here on the committee for this important
hearing today. I think it highlights a very important issue
with what I would say is the unintended consequences of the
Affordable Care Act.
I would associate myself with some of the comments earlier
by others that recognizes health care costs too much in
America. The status quo is not acceptable. It is why I have
supported the Empowering Patients First Act, which is another,
a different philosophy in trying to address these very same
problems.
We are here today to talk about the impact, the real live
consequences of the Affordable Care Act. And we have heard a
lot of talk on the other side of the aisle about the best of
intentions of the Affordable Care Act. And frankly, I don't
quarrel with their intentions but you are accountable for both
the intended and unintended consequences of your actions. That
is the issue we are here to highlight today.
I appreciate the testimony of all of you--would like to
highlight a little bit some of the impact. In Indiana, where I
am from, we have had in recent days reported that 701 Hoosiers
have signed up on the Affordable Health Care Act exchanges, and
108,000 are going to lose their health care plan.
The schools in my district have cited similar experiences
to Mr. Benigni. Dave Adams at the Shelbyville school system in
my district estimates a $794,000 impact on his school because
of the law.
The Southern Hancock County schools estimate $340,000, both
schools that were smaller than Mr. Benigni's school system.
The Fort Wayne community school system is going to change
its policies with 840 part-time employees, keeping them below
30-hour work weeks, that would save the school, 10--the school
system which is a county-wide school system $10 million.
Vigo County schools have a similar experience. And I would
just--several of you highlighted this. Most directly, Mr.
Benigni and Mr. Jandris, if you could highlight again, very
specifically, the financial impact of this law on your school?
And what that is going to do to directly impact student
learning?
You cited, for example, the number of teachers.
Mr. Benigni. In general, the same concerns that you are
hearing in Indiana is what is starting to develop in
Connecticut. You know it all depends on the layers of the law.
So when you ask me to give one figure, I don't know that I can
give you one figure. I can give you a worse case, best case
scenario.
Mr. Messer. But you cited $2.5 million as one impact.
Mr. Benigni. As one of--in 2018. Looking at these numbers
in their entirely, the cost of the Affordable Care Act
requirements to the Meriden Board of Education approaches $4.6
million.
Mr. Messer. Which is how many teachers in your school
system?
Mr. Benigni. Fifty-eight teaching positions. Now obviously
that wouldn't be 58 teachers, to be fair, it could be 20 paras,
it could be 10 behavior techs, five administrators. But people
will lose their positions.
Mr. Messer. Fifty-eight out of how many total staff?
Mr. Benigni. Out of 1,100 total staff.
Mr. Messer. A big number.
Mr. Jandris. In Toss, it is a similar situation, although I
represent a private faith-based institution. We have no other
resources except tuition dollars from which to reallocate this
kind of expenses. As I mentioned earlier, in the worst case
scenario it would be a million dollar hit to my budget, which
would be substantial.
That could equate to 44 adjunct employees for us, and
limited access to the kinds of students we serve as a result of
that kind a reduction. A 10 percent reduction in our adjunct
ranks.
Mr. Messer. So it limits your curriculum, and it also
raises costs for your students? But I think, in addition to the
impact--the real world impact on student learning, I think
there is a real world impact to the rest of your faculty, right
and the current opportunities that you are providing from a
health care perspective and the decisions you may have to face,
so if--either--again, I know, Mr. Benigni from your prior
testimony, you provide health care to your current employees.
Or are you happen to look at other decisions with your
health care plan?
Mr. Benigni. Ninety-four of our employees receive health
care coverage, it is the cost that insure those other six at a
time when there are no resources to do it. So already, we have
reduced hours from 30 hours a week to 27 \1/2\.
And I am like a private business, I can't separate into
different LLCs and make sure they are all under 50 employees,
we are a school system who depends on the support to run, and
this is coming at a bad time, because the funding is not there
to educate--
Mr. Messer. And if those faculty leave, where does that
burden fall?
Mr. Benigni. That burden falls back on Congress to discuss
unemployment benefits.
Mr. Messer. Well, I mean, but doesn't it fall to the
people--well that, but it also falls on the rest of your staff.
Mr. Benigni. Right.
Mr. Messer. The rest of your staff.
Mr. Benigni. Without question. And just to say, I have a
tremendous amount of respect for my unions, we have a great
working relations. We negotiated very good health plans for our
employees, we have shifted them to HSA, they are happy with
their health care plans right now. It is not like we are taking
advantage of our employees, we are trying to serve our kids.
Chairman Kline. The gentleman's time has expired.
Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank
you Mr. Ranking Member. And thank you to all the witnesses for
being here today.
And I am glad that you all recognize the importance of
access to health care. And I don't think that any of you would
disagree that this was an issue that needed to be addressed.
The health care costs were increasing, something needed to be
done.
So I wasn't in Congress when the Affordable Care Act
passed, but I do know and appreciate the goal of increasing the
number of people who have insurance and therefore have better
access to health care.
It is--that increase access to care can improve, you know,
prevention, and that access to preventive care is important. In
the long term reduce chronic disease, eliminate the cost shift
of people getting high-priced health care in emergency rooms.
And generally resolve in a healthier society. And I therefore
applaud the goals of the law. And I really urge us to think
long term about this, you know there are talks about how many
people signed up on the first day or even the first week, or
month.
We really need to look long term. As we are looking at the
long term effect on our society of a healthier population.
And I certainly agree with my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle that the Affordable Care Act, like many comprehensive
laws when they first go into effect has room for improvement.
And I think we would all agree on that.
And we should be working together constructively to
identify issues that need to be addressed in order to improve
this law.
One thing I do want point out too is the importance of some
of the market reforms. And I know Mr. Needles, in your
testimony, you talked about one of the more popular ones which
is students up to the age of 26 staying on their parents health
care plan.
And you know people who call for repeal, that wouldn't be
very popular in my district. There are a lot of those students
who are on their parents health care plans. I think there are
more 6 \1/2\ million in this country.
Now who are taking advantage of that to stay on that plan
while they are either, you know, furthering education, looking
for a job, so, there are very important parts of this law that
are making a big difference.
So again, I hope we can have a constructive discussion
about how to improve implementation.
Now, I know that there has been discussion about how the
IRS has not published a final rule on the adjunct faculty
issue. And some employers may be making what will turn out to
be inaccurate assumptions about what the law requires.
And I wanted to ask you, Ms. Maisto, I appreciated your
focus on the challenges facing adjunct professors, particularly
concerned about what you say about the increase in percentage
of faculty that is adjunct. It concerns me greatly.
But let's talk about this proposed rule and not knowing
what eventually will be in the rule if employers are making
decisions about hours and health care eligibility without
complete and accurate information. How might that be affecting
adjunct professors?
Ms. Maisto. Well, it is certainly creating a huge amount of
uncertainty for them. But what they are, I think, relying on is
the idea that through the Affordable Care Act they will be able
to get health insurance, if they need it.
When colleges have reduced adjunct hours, they have not
corresponded with an increase in pay. So they have not provided
them with more income. But the Affordable Care Act is now
serving as a safety net for most of those adjunct faculty
members.
And I know that there is a lot of relief out there that,
even if their adjunct hours are cut that they probably will
have access to health care.
Ms. Bonamici. And you may have mentioned this already but
what percentage of adjunct faculty have insurance already,
either through a spouse or through another position that they
may have, or through their own individual purchase through an
exchange or an individual plan?
Ms. Maisto. I would have to get you the exact figure. It is
certainly true that many have access to insurance through other
sources. So one of the things that we are hoping that will come
out in the rule-making process is perhaps figuring out ways to
exempt those who already have insurance from being counted for
the purpose of the mandate.
So we think there are lots of creative ways that we can
address this without penalizing people and denying them health
insurance. And we think that there are some--you know, there
ought to be some ways to come up with some creative solutions,
and we are happy that we are part of the conversation because
that doesn't usually happen,
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much.
And I wanted just to reiterate some of the comments that my
colleagues made about other issues, as well, that are affecting
education and higher education, including the sequestration
cuts. I had a lot of discussions out the last time I was in my
district in Oregon about how sequestration cuts are affecting
programs like Title I.
How state disinvestment and higher education is affecting
tuition rates. So let's not let the Affordable--yes, there are
issues to be addressed, but let's not let the Affordable Care
Act take our focus away from those other important issues that
are affecting both K-12 education and higher education.
And I see my time has expired, thank you, I yield back.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentlelady.
Mrs. Brooks, you are recognized.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to pick
up on a question a couple of questions ago that really talked
about the student impact, and we have heard a bit about the
student impact. But I met last week, when I was in my district,
with a number of school superintendents from Hamilton County
and Madison County, and talked with them about the impact of
the increased health care cost to their school district. And I
guess, Dr. Benigni, you mentioned, you know, all these teaching
positions and you, Ms. Maisto, talked about your inability to
spend more time with our students outside of the classroom.
That you have like 1 hour.
But could we actually talk about the real actual impacts?
And one of the things that they brought up with me from the K-
12 system is that a lot of teachers' aids were being cut in
the--because of the hours. And that they have--including those
for special needs kids, and you have obligations, particularly
when it comes to special needs kids, which really kind of opens
the systems up to lawsuits, if you aren't complying with those.
Can you actually--each of you, kind of share with us,
briefly, some specific student impact that you are concerned
about with respect to the additional cost to your systems.
Dr. Benigni?
Mr. Benigni. In regards to the special education, some of
our students who deal with transitions not so well are now
going to have to deal with the transition from one staff to
another. Because we can't afford--the money is not there in the
budget. So, you get no increase. Your health insurance
increases are going up at 15 percent a year already, so there
is $1.5 million in my budget that I need to make up for before
I get out the gate.
That is just in contractual increases and where the health
market is today. So, what I will do to address the student
issue is--what I will do is, I will transition a para or a
support staff member. They will stay with the student for the
morning, bring him to lunch. After lunch, I will hire someone
else to transition that student to the second half of the
school day.
Mrs. Brooks. In your opinion, is that best for that
student?
Mr. Benigni. No, and that is the dilemma that we are facing
now. But if I cut teachers and my class size--I mean, I have
fourth and fifth grades with 28 to 30 students in them. I can't
even fit the extra desks in the room to address it, so I have
to cut somewhere. So, that was one option that we have on the
table, is, let's split the shifts. Let's look at when there is
a natural break in the day so it least impacts our students.
Mrs. Brooks. And so, that would be with respect to
teacher's aids?
Mr. Benigni. Behavior techs, para-professionals, teacher's
aids--we all call them different things. But some of our key
support staff members. But it is also coming at a time when we
have worked very hard to bring special education students back
into district. That is part of what has helped us sustain
during these difficult times. We have more students choosing
the Meriden Public School System than outplaced facilities.
I mean, we have a state-of-the-art autism center where
students--so, I am concerned with those transitions. I am
concerned with having those meetings with parents about, ``You
know what? You are going to--now, your child is going to have
to work with two different support staff people.'' But the way
I am pitching it to my people--because they need to be positive
about this--is, let's look when we can do the natural breaks.
Lunchtime, when they are already going to art class.
So, we are going to sort through it, but it is an
uncomfortable position to be in.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Ms. Maisto--
Ms. Maisto. Yes, if I could just say--
Mrs. Brooks.--affecting your students?
Ms. Maisto.--as the parent of a child on the autism
spectrum, this is something that I am very concerned about. But
I think that the answer is not to argue over the Affordable
Care Act. The answer is better funding for schools and for
special education across the board.
There is a huge need across the board. And I think that we
get distracted when we talk about what the impact is going to
be of a specific law that was actually intended to help, and
will help so many people, and not address the bigger question
of providing the right amount of support to our students and
their teachers.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, but switching gears back to faculty
members' inability with reduced hours, can you and Dr. Jandris
please talk about how your students will be impacted besides
rising costs? Any actual application?
Mr. Jandris. Yes, in my instance, we would first and
foremost have to reduce the numbers of adjuncts available. In
reducing that number of adjuncts, then those students who are
in some of our hardest-to-serve areas would not have readily
convenient access to their education.
We would also, since we are so diffuse in the way in which
we teach, have to limit access to technology because technology
is expensive when you do it remotely.
And then, finally and thirdly, we would have to reduce
other ancillary and supplemental instructional supplies and
materials, now that we distribute literally worldwide for our
students to be able to have access to.
So, some very real consequences. We have no other pots of
money form which to draw unless we reallocate from student from
instruction to salaries and benefits.
Mrs. Brooks. Which will affect our completion rate at the
end of the day, or not.
Mr. Jandris. Exactly.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Miller, you are recognized for any comments and closing
remarks.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again to
the witnesses.
Ms. Maisto, so, who is a full-time professor?
Ms. Maisto. Who is a full-time professor?
Mr. Miller. Yes. One who does what?
Ms. Maisto. Full-time professors, if they are on the tenure
track, have obligations not just to teach, but also to be
involved in research and service. Those are actually
obligations that all faculty members have. But those who are
not on the tenure track don't get credited for research and
service, even if they do it.
Mr. Miller. So, there are no full-time professors other
than people in tenured track?
Ms. Maisto. There are full-time non-tenure track
professors--
Mr. Miller. How many--
Ms. Maisto.--but there are now sort of--
Mr. Miller. How many units do they teach a week?
Ms. Maisto. I am sorry?
Mr. Miller. How many units--how many hours do they teach a
week?
Ms. Maisto. It depends. But usually, they have slightly
higher teaching loads than perhaps tenure track professors who
may have research and service obligations. But--
Mr. Miller. But does this three-to-one ratio apply to them?
Ms. Maisto. Ostensibly, these ratios are to apply to all
faculty. It would be problematic if these ratios were to apply
only to part-time faculty, and not to the other faculty. In
part, because students pay the same tuition for classes taught
by any type of faculty member.
Mr. Miller. Right. Let me make my point.
We are deciding as an institution hiring--that adjunct
professors are not inferior professors--
Ms. Maisto. Right.
Mr. Miller.--in terms of quality of course delivery. And I
think we had a hearing here once on for-profits that have
decided that since they are billing by unit--you know, $500 a
unit, or whatever the price is--that these three-unit courses
were really five-unit courses.
So, what is going on there? I mean, so we don't--you know,
and the seat time unit course thing is under challenge because
of Mook's online course--you know--
Ms. Maisto. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Miller. You know, Stanford professors teach 150,000
people.
Ms. Maisto. Right.
Mr. Miller. I don't--are you going to divide that? I mean,
so we maybe have a clash here of accounting systems that don't
make sense anymore, and are already under challenge for a whole
host of reasons. It is a question of, you know, are you
responsible for the outcomes of your students, however you put
those together over that class period of 3 hours a week for 10
weeks, or whatever it is, is that outcome your work product?
And is that not--you are not available for that work product,
but a full-time professor could say that is my work product,
because he or she somehow is in a different accounting system.
Ms. Maisto. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Miller. And, yet, they would not accept the three-to-
one. So, if the three-to-one is--we are seeing, then, what? You
are not preparing as much as the full-time professor?
Ms. Maisto. Right, right.
Mr. Miller. You are not doing the research to update your
classes? I mean, I have looked through syllabuses when I visit
the college classes. I like to see what has been put together
here. There is a hell of a lot more than 3 hours a week with
that class--
Ms. Maisto. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Miller.--just in contact time, even.
Ms. Maisto. Right. Absolutely.
Mr. Miller. And so, you may have a serious clash--this
doesn't make it easy, but it is a serious clash of how we now
measure this. And when we are moving to competencies and
outcomes, and not course time and not units, and certificates
and badges, all of which are unrelated to that whole thing that
was in place--I guess still in place today--in place when I
started college--of this is, what, three units three times--
this is a two-unit course, a five-unit course. That may be as
obsolete as the health care bill is new.
Ms. Maisto. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Miller. I think it raises really serious issues--
Ms. Maisto. Yes, well, we need a national conversation.
Mr. Miller.--about how people are standing in this pecking
order, and how arbitrary that pecking order is, and who gets
inside the system and who gets outside the system.
Ms. Maisto. That is absolutely true. We need a national
conversation about faculty work and its impact on students.
Mr. Miller. Well, I would like to work with you. I would
like to open up some kind of online site so people can talk
about this to members of Congress. Because we are sitting here
going back and forth like we haven't done this, or we should
have done this, or we might do this. And I would like to--
because I think there is a huge lack of understanding of what
it means to be in the adjunct world. And I guess my
perspective--I will raise the question--is there a level of
subsidization that is going on here?
Ms. Maisto. Well, absolutely.
Mr. Miller. It is really unfair. I know that is your case.
Ms. Maisto. Yes.
Mr. Miller. I would just like to see if that could be
quantified, or how we would put that in. And how does this fit
into the evolution that is, you know, rapidly accelerating on
how we award students for their time in--for their time in
class, outside of class. Because we are now--you know,
education is becoming more of a process than a place.
Ms. Maisto. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Miller. Rapidly so. And who monitors that? And how do
you guide those students? And is that the same as if they were
all in your class? But they are not in class this week because
they are out getting competencies and experiences that are
related to class.
This is going to get more and more difficult--
Ms. Maisto. Right.
Mr. Miller.--and have a hell of a lot less to do with the
Affordable Care Act than it is about institutions, about
student loans, about debt funding--
Ms. Maisto. Absolutely.
Mr. Miller.--that are driving these changes. And how do we
award competencies and outcome, as opposed to seat time?
Ms. Maisto. Absolutely.
Mr. Miller. So, you all think about this. We will have you
back in a little while. Thank you so much for your attendance
here.
Ms. Maisto. Thank you.
Chairman Kline. I thank the gentleman.
And we have been having a little side conversation here as
we have started to think about the adjunct faculty issue. And I
am sure there will be further discussions. And we are already
having hearings and starting to wrestle with the
Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. And those will
continue.
But the hearing today was not if we can fix the adjunct
faculty, and it is not really whether or not the Affordable
Care Act is working, or can be made to work, or something like
that. It was to look at the unintended consequences of that
law, which is unfolding in front of us.
And so, I very much appreciate your testimony and the
answers to the questions. And what I heard out of this is,
besides the education that we got up here about adjunct
faculty, and some disagreement about whether they are paid
enough or have enough benefits. That is an interesting issue.
But we are trying to get at here, you got people, institutions,
we have got a university here. We have got public school. We
have got somebody who is advising. We have got somebody who is
working as an adjunct faculty member.
What is the implementation of this law doing to you? And
what I have heard is this. It is more expensive. And so, Dr.
Jandris says, ``Well, this is maybe a million dollars. And,
okay, but around here a million dollars is--I think Ms. DeLauro
said that is budget dust, or something like that. But to you,
it is really important. And so, you have to make decisions. And
you very, very carefully explained to us that you don't have a
large endowment. And you are not a public institution, so you
are not going to get more money from the state or something.
So, you have to raise tuition.
And one of the other issues that we talk about here all the
time is the ever-rising cost of higher education--tuitions and
fees, going up. That certainly would be an unintended
consequence if that is what you had to do, was raise the cost.
And looking at your student body, 85 percent of whom are non-
traditional. I am kind of like Ms. Foxx--we ought to find
another way of talking about that, since there are more non-
traditional students than traditional students in many places.
Or you testified that, well, if you don't raise the
tuition, you are going to have to reduce the number of sites.
You may have to lay off some adjunct faculty, and so the
quality of service is going to go down and that is something
that we don't want to see happen--would certainly qualify as an
unintended consequences of the implementation of this law.
And, Dr. Benigni--and I apologize, we have butchered your
name every day as well as Ms. Maisto and Meriden and I don't
know, I can't ever remember a day where we had so many
mispronunciations up here.
But, your concern is not whether or not this law is a good
law, whether it works or all of that kind of stuff, you are
looking at dollars and cents, and you are having to make
choices--are you gonna cut back on faculty, are you gonna have
to go to split time--I thought that was a very excellent
explanation of, are you gonna have somebody take the student to
lunch and then somebody else pick them up after lunch?
And these are tough questions and you have a negotiated
benefit package with your teachers, and they like the health
care coverage they have got right now and your testimony is,
you may not be able to keep that. The health care they like may
not be the health care they end up with at the end of this.
And again, that is an unintended consequence. You have got
a school district and it is working, and you are wrestling with
the daily problems of staffing and discipline and students
coming and going and now you have got potentially over 2
million that is gonna impact you by 2018. And our friend and
colleague, Ms. Fudge, said, well why--she didn't believe that
number, but you have got professionals that are giving that
number and you are wrestling to how you are going to deal with
that.
So again, that is what this hearing was for. And not
surprising, because it is often at tale of two cities, we look
at things a little bit different here. You know, I don't know
if it is the best of times or worst of times. It really is
both, but I want to thank the witnesses for coming, for your
testimony and for your engaging in the discussions. I
appreciate it very much.
There being no further business, we are adjourned.
------
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]