Cutting a small company's health benefits
- Kind
- Ethical dilemma
Prompt
You work in human resources at a furniture manufacturer with 45 employees. The insurer has told the company that the cost of its employee health benefits plan, which covers prescriptions, dental care, eyeglasses and counseling, will rise by 30% next year. The owner can absorb a third of the increase. She asks you to recommend one of three ways to cover the rest. The first is to raise every employee's monthly contribution by $60, which would be hardest on the factory workers, who earn the least. The second is to stop covering employees' spouses and children, which would affect 18 families. The third is to drop counseling coverage, which few employees use, but those who do use it heavily. Which would you recommend, and how would you decide?
Practice this question
After you practice: what this question tests and how to approach it
What this question tests
- Ethical reasoning
- Health systems and advocacy
- Communication
How to approach this question
This MMI station tests how you share a painful cost fairly among employees who would each be hurt in a different way. Name who bears each option: the lowest-paid factory workers under a flat increase, 18 families under the cut to spouses and children, and a small group who rely heavily on counseling under the third choice. Say what you'd want to know, such as wage ranges and whether affected families have coverage elsewhere. Weigh how many people are harmed against how deeply each is harmed, and consider combinations like a contribution scaled to income. Recommend one path and say plainly who loses under it. When a follow-up hands the decision to a majority vote, consider whether a majority should decide a cost that falls on a few, and how you'd speak up for them.
More on health system funding and design
All 8 questions on this topicMock interviews
If you want to practice with a person, we run mock MMI and panel interviews with feedback on every answer.
