Having formerly been a CEO trying provide a valued package of benefits for over 700 employees, I am continually perplexed by the decision making process currently being used to evaluate the potential employee acceptance of a global travel program.
On one hand, there are reservations expressed because the senior execs state " we would not travel over seas for a major surgery, therefore neither would our employees." These execs typically receive first dollar coverage, but their employees have steep deductibles and copays.
Another benefit of the program is that we encourage employers to share the savings resulting from an employee choosing to travel with the employee. So the execs are also assuming that their employees would choose to stay at the local hospital, instead of traveling to India or Costa Rica, undergo surgery from a less experienced local surgeon, and forgo putting $5-$10K in their pockets.
Turning the objections around, the case could be made that execs and other employees are costing the company hundreds of thousands per year by blindly following the status quo and using lower quality/hi expense US hospitals versus a vastly less expensive, and higher quality global alternative. For a manufacture that counts fractions of pennies for each part of the supply chain...I just don't get it.
Given that our program can be implemented at no cost to the corporation...and we now have scores of very happy corporate employees...the reticence of senior execs to offer global healthcare to their employees, as an option, continues to be perplexing.
No comments:
Post a Comment