For more than a decade Alabama Baptists and other Southern Baptists have complained about the ever-rising costs of medical insurance for church employees. At meetings sponsored by the SBC Annuity Board, executives predicted again and again that soon-to-be-adopted government programs would help bring down these skyrocketing costs.
It has not happened. Instead, pastors and other church staff members continue to pay higher and higher medical insurance costs. Most of the time the costs come out of church budgets. Unfortunately, in some cases, the costs come out of the minister’s pocket. Continuing this pattern should not be acceptable when another, less expensive approach is possible.
Rising medical costs are not peculiar to pastors and church staff members. Medical insurance is increasing for everyone. But Baptist ministers are at a distinct disadvantage. They are not members of any medical group insurance program. The SBC Annuity Board underwrites its medical insurance on an individual basis rather than on a group basis. The result is much higher costs for churches and pastors than if they were part of a group program.
Baptist polity is part of the reason for individual underwriting. The Annuity Board cannot force a church to provide medical insurance for its pastor and other staff members. Nor can a pastor or other minister be forced to participate. Thus, there is no “group” on which to price insurance. It is all the individual decisions of churches and pastors.
In some places, churches have banded together to form medical insurance groups in an effort to reduce costs. A few associations have led this effort and done so successfully. If groups can be formed for insurance purposes on an associational basis, it seems possible for Alabama Baptist churches to form a group in order to achieve savings in the cost of medical insurance.
The savings could be significant. The Alabama Baptist is fortunate to have a Blue Cross/Blue Shield group insurance program for its employees. The cost is less than half the amount of the Blue Cross/Blue Shield network offered by the SBC Annuity Board with benefits that are at least as good, if not better.
Obviously, Baptist polity cannot be violated in order to form a medical insurance group. That means no church could be forced to participate. But providing churches the option to participate in a medical insurance group is not forcing a church to participate. It is offering a service that is not now available to them.
Some observers contend the rising costs are creating “an environment of crisis” in health insurance. If that is true, then a large number of churches could be expected to explore the possibilities of working together to provide adequate medical insurance at rates that are less than those currently paid.
Those churches that ultimately chose to participate would commit to providing medical insurance for their pastors and ministerial staff, along with other employees the churches opted to include, through the new medical insurance group. That decision would then provide the basis for group coverage.
The more churches that participated, the better. The larger the group, the broader the base on which to underwrite an insurance program. Provision could also be made for churches to periodically revisit the decision to participate in the medical insurance group. Some churches might join the group while others might decide on a different course.
Whenever one talks about forming a group, administrative expenses are a factor. Insurance companies do not bill individual participants for group medical insurance costs. One bill is sent to the group. That means someone must be responsible for collecting from participants, for paying the bills, for answering questions about the group medical insurance program and so forth.
There are drawbacks to a group medical insurance program, too. A major problem would be that pastors who left a church which participated in the group insurance program would have to find medical insurance from another source. A benefit would be that a pastor coming to a church which participated in the group medical plan could participate in the coverage because the church was already a member.
To this writer, Alabama Baptist churches banding together to form a medical insurance group makes sense. It is at least worth investigating. Perhaps at the upcoming meeting of the Alabama Baptist State Convention someone will be interested enough to ask that a study be done on the feasibility of the state convention forming such a group in order to provide a service not currently available to cooperating Baptist churches.
The alternative is continuing the astronomical costs of individual medical insurance underwriting as now done by the SBC Annuity Board.
Concern about financial stewardship alone ought to be enough to make us look at a possible alternative.
Share with others: