Good Afternoon, I will be directly emailing a few of you out there in "Core Administrative Land" but wanted to cast a wide net on this. We are exploring the feasibility of establishing a "Group-Self-Insurance Pool" for Core instrumentation vs. equipment specific, Core-level contracts. If you are currently managing such a pool, have done this in the past or examined it please let me know if I can contract you to discuss. Tom McHugh <email obscured> 410 706 6041 http://medschool.umaryland.edu/cibr
Group-Self-Insurance Pool for Core Instrumentation
- 6 posts by 5 authors
- Last post by Sarah Piper at 2:39am, Sep 13
Keywords:
- insurance
- self
- pool
- self-insurance
- instrument
Hello Tom, I am interested in what kinds of ideas you and others have around this. Andy Chitty Director | University Shared Resources <https://www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/research-cores/> Oregon Health and Science University Phone: 503.494.5887 <email obscured> On 8/20/19, 9:52 AM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of tmchugh" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote: Good Afternoon, I will be directly emailing a few of you out there in "Core Administrative Land" but wanted to cast a wide net on this. We are exploring the feasibility of establishing a "Group-Self-Insurance Pool" for Core instrumentation vs. equipment specific, Core-level contracts. If you are currently managing such a pool, have done this in the past or examined it please let me know if I can contract you to discuss. Tom McHugh <email obscured> 410 706 6041 http://medschool.umaryland.edu/cibr ββ View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/4v4nI2p64345UX38yyXkjB Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe
I'd also be interested in any ideas of how this could be structured to gain the approval of our compliance folks. Bruce Koch
Hi from Australia, This is something that has crossed my mind a few times, but I don't know quite how it would be run. I'm thinking about self-insurance of all the cores at our university Faculty, so it might be something that the Faculty could fund. I suspect Tom, you are talking about participating cores depositing into the communal fund? Some thoughts that immediately pop to mind for either funding strategy are: 1. would the pool cover individual instruments or an entire facility? I think it would have to be the former. 2. the self-insurance pool would mean Cores would not purchase preventative maintenance contracts on their equipment. I suspect there would have to be limits on either the types of equipment eligible for self-insurance, or rules around how long the instruments could go without a service contract. Maybe every second or third year would make sense? 3. Would there be a limit on how many times a Core or an instrument could dip into the pool for funds? Maybe twice or three times in an instrument's lifetime, or no more than once every two years? 4. Would there be a limit on how old an instrument could be to qualify for self insurance? Perhaps anything less than 5 years old? 5. Would there be a limit on how much will be contributed to the repair? Eg: up to half the instrument's replacement value. 6. What would happen if the pool is not exhausted at the end of the financial year? At our university, we cannot carry funds over financial years, so it would need to be spent. I guess it could be returned proportionally to contributing cores. Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts. Sarah Faculty of Medicine University of Queensland Brisbane, Australia.
Sarah, My 2 cents worth (American cents:-): As a core director, I would not sign up for the plan you list below if it were administered as youβve laid out. Hereβs why, 1. Many instruments that are still frequently used in research are over 5 years old and would not be covered in your plan. 2. Some instruments are simply more temperamental than others and will need to be repaired many more times than 2 or 3 times over their lifetime. NGS sequencers will need FAR more than this amount of service, for example. Probably there will be 2-3 calls for service every year, maybe more. 3. Your last point is problematic. It would actually be ideal if the funds COULD increase year over year because some instruments are quite pricey, but if the contributions to the plan were able to continue at a reasonable rate, instruments could be replaced as they age or become to expensive to maintain. It makes me wonder if university administration would be willing to look into this? Just a few thoughts. Iβm sure there are many others with better feedback than Iβve given. Derek Derek Warner Director, Sequencing and Genomics Core Facilities University of Utah 801-581-4736 <email obscured> www.cores.utah.edu
On 8/22/19, 9:53 PM, "Core Administrators Network Forum on behalf of Sarah Piper" <email obscured> on behalf of <email obscured>> wrote: >Hi from Australia, > >This is something that has crossed my mind a few times, but I don't know >quite how it would be run. I'm thinking about self-insurance of all the >cores at our university Faculty, so it might be something that the >Faculty could fund. I suspect Tom, you are talking about participating >cores depositing into the communal fund? > >Some thoughts that immediately pop to mind for either funding strategy >are: > >1. would the pool cover individual instruments or an entire facility? I >think it would have to be the former. >2. the self-insurance pool would mean Cores would not purchase >preventative maintenance contracts on their equipment. I suspect there >would have to be limits on either the types of equipment eligible for >self-insurance, or rules around how long the instruments could go without >a service contract. Maybe every second or third year would make sense? >3. Would there be a limit on how many times a Core or an instrument could >dip into the pool for funds? Maybe twice or three times in an >instrument's lifetime, or no more than once every two years? >4. Would there be a limit on how old an instrument could be to qualify >for self insurance? Perhaps anything less than 5 years old? >5. Would there be a limit on how much will be contributed to the repair? >Eg: up to half the instrument's replacement value. >6. What would happen if the pool is not exhausted at the end of the >financial year? At our university, we cannot carry funds over financial >years, so it would need to be spent. I guess it could be returned >proportionally to contributing cores. > >Would love to hear everyone else's thoughts. > >Sarah > >Faculty of Medicine >University of Queensland >Brisbane, Australia. >ββ >View topic http://list.abrf.org/r/topic/4uvQ3bxzNKWIvRTjYpBFLF >Leave group <email obscured>?Subject=Unsubscribe >
Finally found the time to get back to this conversation.... thanks for your comments Derek, yes, your comments are all correct. It is a tricky situation. Rather than having rules around instrument age or claim frequency limits, perhaps only certain items could be eligible for self-insurance. For example, particularly delicate instruments could be named ineligible, as they should be on service contracts instead? Whereas other items that are relatively robust could be included. I suppose eligibility would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, with each instrument being considered with respect to its age, usage levels, reliability and the relative cost of service contract to replacement parts. yes, a very tricky situation. Has anyone had any success self-insuring?
Sarah