Myths About Health Benefits for Same-Sex Domestic Partners

Myth 1: This issue to too radical for UIC.

• Many universities with which we compete for faculty and students already provide same-sex domestic partnership benefits.
  
• "By the end of this year, every Ivy League university will provide domestic partner benefits for same-sex partners." (See enclosed article "Equal Pay for Equal Families.")
  
• Many public universities provide same-sex domestic partnership benefits including University of Minnesota , University of Iowa, Iowa State, San Jose State, Central Michigan University, Central Missouri State, Central State University (Ohio), University of Vermont, University of Wisconsin, Madison, and University of Colorado.

Myth 2: Everyone will try to take advantage of this.

• · Other universities generally require a signed statement by two adults which affirms they are in a committed partnership, are each other's sole domestic partner, share the common necessities of life, and are responsible for each other's welfare.
  
• · Some institutions require evidence of the following:
  
  • cohabitation,
  • shared debts and assets,
  • shared bank accounts, or
  • naming the partner a beneficiary
    

Myth 3: The cost will be too high.

• Documentation shows that the cost is minimal in comparison to health benefits in general.
  
• One study of 15 employers found that the number of people enroled for health benefit coverage increased b 0.3 percent. (See enclosed "Equal Pay for Equal Families.")
  
• No employers have traced higher rates to adverse selection of beneficiaries due to HIV infection in gay men. (See enclosed "Equal Pay for Equal Families.") Gay men will not require health services for pregnancy.
  
• University of Minnesota has between 30 and 40 people who have applied for same-sex domestic partner health benefits.
  
• A report by the UIC benefits office reports that, at the University of Minnesota, it is " their sense is that [costs] are not greater to date than regular dependent coverage."

Myth 4: This issue can not be addressed unless all other health-benefits problems are solved.

• There are many additional benefits that employees may want, and there may be other inequities in health benefits. This resolution addresses a specific instance of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Such discrimination is prohibited by university policy.
• Correcting this instance of discrimination should not be contingent on solving all problems in health benefits.

Myth 5: This issue "lies beyond the Senate and the University."

• The Board of Trustees has the power to purchase equivalent health care insurance for same-sex domestic partners of employees. This has already been done at the University of Minnesota and other institutions.

Myth 6: The State created the problem. We should wait for the State to fix it.

• The University, not the State, has a policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Benefits provided to University employees are not in compliance with this policy. Correcting discrimination is our problem.

We urge you work toward nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,

in accordance with University policy.

Distributed by the Chancellor's Committee on the Status of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues