Camille Quintero· Senior Compensation Analyst, Cardinal Insurance
Posted in Benefits & Wellbeing ·
US university, about 9,500 benefits-eligible faculty and staff. For a decade our open enrolment was passive: do nothing and last year's elections roll over. This year we required everyone to actively confirm or change, because we had added a new medical plan option and dependants had not been verified in years.
We got to 93% completion. The last 12 points took three deadline extensions, about 2,200 phone calls to my team of six, and the provost's office getting involved on behalf of faculty on sabbatical abroad.
We did remove 310 ineligible dependants, which saves real money. But I am genuinely unsure I would do it every year. How do others decide?
7 helpful · 2 insightful · 3 replies · 319 views · 4 following
Director of Benefits, Qasr Holdings
We do active every third year and passive in between. It gives a regular clean-up without burning the team out annually. In the active years we set the default for non-responders as employee-only cover on the lowest-cost plan, published well ahead. That is what gets people to act, and we have never had to extend the deadline.
Reward Partner, Orchard & Vine
A harsh default worries me. Someone on medical leave or caring for a dying parent misses the window and their children lose cover in January. We had exactly that case. If you set a punitive default you need an appeal route that restores cover quickly, and you need to tell people it exists.
Maya TanakaCRP
Sales Compensation Manager, Calibre Software
You could separate the two goals. Dependant verification does not need active enrolment. We run it as its own exercise in spring, sampling 20% of members with dependants each year, and keep open enrolment passive except for accounts that legally need a fresh election each year.
