Showing posts with label HR. Show all posts
Showing posts with label HR. Show all posts
Friday, October 23, 2009
We'd All Like to Know
One of our readers wants to know how much money UK Human Resources spent sending ANOTHER letter out about the potential savings of Express Scripts, including to people who'd already called up and declined to use Express Scripts (because, you know, you like talking to a real person when getting your meds), a letter telling us that now we don't need to do anything if we want to opt out, etc. And finally, I'd like to just know when UK is going to force us all to use Express Scripts because it saves them money somehow.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Express Script - A Run for Your Money?
Another issue sent in by one of our readers:
"Some of you might have received a letter from Human Resources regarding the new home delivery plan from Express Scripts. I certainly hope it will save us money like it is supposed to. However, there is one aspect that I believe is 'true to form' for UK.
"The letter states that in order for you to continue to receive benefits, you MUST inform Express Scripts that you will not enroll in Express Scripts Pharmacy. According to the letter (emphasis in the original letter):
"Here's how it works: From October 15, 2009 on, you may obtain the first and second refills of your maintenance medication at any participating pharmacy. Starting with your third fill, you will pay the full cost of your prescription unless you move to the Express Scripts Pharmacy OR let Express Scripts know you choose not to participate in this program and want to keep your prescription at your local pharmacy.
"Why would HR force us to call Express Scripts if we simply wish to continue to get our prescription the usual way and do not wish to participate in the new program? Doesn't it make more sense to say, those who wish to participate in the new program, please enroll? Note that this letter is coming from UK's HR folks.
"In addition, note that the bold emphasis is reserved for the part which seems to indicate that you will pay the full price unless you participate. The other option is not in bold. I am not sure if this is intentional, but somebody who looks at the bold part of the sentence will be mislead into thinking that they will not receive prescription benefits unless they enroll.
"Thanks."
We have that letter right here. It does imply that if a staff member doesn't participate they will have to pay the full price. Personally, we've never had a good experience with Express Scripts. They must be paying UK a pretty penny for its business.
When you read that letter, what did you think? Why do you think UK is doing this?
"Some of you might have received a letter from Human Resources regarding the new home delivery plan from Express Scripts. I certainly hope it will save us money like it is supposed to. However, there is one aspect that I believe is 'true to form' for UK.
"The letter states that in order for you to continue to receive benefits, you MUST inform Express Scripts that you will not enroll in Express Scripts Pharmacy. According to the letter (emphasis in the original letter):
"Here's how it works: From October 15, 2009 on, you may obtain the first and second refills of your maintenance medication at any participating pharmacy. Starting with your third fill, you will pay the full cost of your prescription unless you move to the Express Scripts Pharmacy OR let Express Scripts know you choose not to participate in this program and want to keep your prescription at your local pharmacy.
"Why would HR force us to call Express Scripts if we simply wish to continue to get our prescription the usual way and do not wish to participate in the new program? Doesn't it make more sense to say, those who wish to participate in the new program, please enroll? Note that this letter is coming from UK's HR folks.
"In addition, note that the bold emphasis is reserved for the part which seems to indicate that you will pay the full price unless you participate. The other option is not in bold. I am not sure if this is intentional, but somebody who looks at the bold part of the sentence will be mislead into thinking that they will not receive prescription benefits unless they enroll.
"Thanks."
We have that letter right here. It does imply that if a staff member doesn't participate they will have to pay the full price. Personally, we've never had a good experience with Express Scripts. They must be paying UK a pretty penny for its business.
When you read that letter, what did you think? Why do you think UK is doing this?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
When Did She Get Hired?
The rumor mill has been busy this week and the issues are all sadly business as usual -- the UK Way.
Let's start with a simple one. Why is Patsy Todd allowed to interfere in HR's hiring and firing decisions for staff even though she is not a UK employee? Is she also interfering with faculty hirings and firings? Does she get a bonus for this (besides driving a university car)?
Of course, we all know that certain high-level administrators frequently bypass HR in hiring and firing. All they have to do is pick up the phone and say they want so-and-so hired at such-and-such a salary, and that's that.
The rest of us have to settle for being overqualified and underpaid to work at UK.
Let's start with a simple one. Why is Patsy Todd allowed to interfere in HR's hiring and firing decisions for staff even though she is not a UK employee? Is she also interfering with faculty hirings and firings? Does she get a bonus for this (besides driving a university car)?
Of course, we all know that certain high-level administrators frequently bypass HR in hiring and firing. All they have to do is pick up the phone and say they want so-and-so hired at such-and-such a salary, and that's that.
The rest of us have to settle for being overqualified and underpaid to work at UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
