Thursday, September 3, 2026

UN retirees: Updated call to action on pension and health insurance, September 3, 2026

 Dear UN retirees,

Further to my earlier post regarding UN pension and After-Service Health Insurance (ASHI), I am writing to ask you to take action on both issues.

Even if you have already sent emails to FAFICS or HLIS in response to my earlier posts, please send these new emails as well. The new information about continuing increases in health-care costs together with the documented need for independent auditing and verification of health-insurance costs and cost-containment measures, makes these new communications necessary, and they state that they supersede any previous communications on these matters.  

There is a new reason for urgency.

A New York Times report today, “Employer Health Costs Are Expected to Spike in 2027,” reports that employer-sponsored health-care costs are projected to rise by an average of 11% in 2027, assuming no changes to health plans. Employers can reduce their costs by changing their plans, but such changes can shift more costs to workers or reduce their benefits. The article describes the resulting 8% increase in employers’ final costs as the steepest since 2003, underscoring the continuing pressure of rising health-care costs on health-insurance participants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/02/business/health-insurance-increases.html

For UN retirees, this should raise a fundamental question: if health-care costs are going to continue rising, who is independently verifying that the costs being passed on to participants are reasonable, and that measures described as “cost containment” are actually producing the savings claimed?

This is not simply a question of whether health care is becoming more expensive. It is a question of independent oversight and accountability.

The UN's own record makes this particularly important. The Board of Auditors raised concerns about inadequate controls and reported in 2019 that the last audit of actual medical claims had been conducted in 2010. An “open-book” audit was subsequently undertaken in 2022, but its findings do not appear to have been made public. The JIU's 2023 review found that most UN health-insurance schemes were not regularly audited and that cost-containment measures generally could not demonstrate the savings achieved.

There is a second issue: pension.

The General Assembly has mandated a broad review of the UN pension scheme, including its design and ways of lowering costs and contributions. Possible changes could include a hybrid defined-benefit/defined-contribution system, making it important that accrued rights and the integrity of the present defined-benefit system be protected.

There is also an important political context. An April 2026 Devex report identified UN pension reform as one of the “quick wins” the U.S. government intended to seek from the UN in connection with payment of U.S. UN dues. I have written about what this external pressure, together with the current pension review, could mean for the Fund in my UN Pension Blog essay, “Quick Wins and Slow Erosion.”

That is why I am encouraging retirees to take two simple actions:

1. Write to FAFICS and ask what it is doing to protect retirees' interests on both pension and ASHI, including whether it has raised the issues of timely communication, independent health-insurance oversight and verification of cost-containment savings.

2. Write to HLIS and ask about its role in premium-setting and cost containment, how those measures and their claimed savings are independently verified, and what is being done to ensure that retirees receive important information before, rather than after, an enrollment period.

Again, even if you have already written, please send the updated letter. This new communication supersedes the previous one.

These are not matters we should simply read about and move on from. Our collective voice is much stronger than any individual voice, but only if we use it.

Thank you for taking the time to speak up on issues that affect us all.

Please read the relevant UN Pension blog articles at the end of this post,including about the outdated Avaaz petition that went viral earlier this month; details of the changes to ASHI plans; and a "Reality Check on FAFICS: who do they represent?" Note that this article contains important questions on these issues that UN retirees should ask the heads of local FAFICS associations; and please regularly consult the UN Pension Blog for updates:

https://unpension.blogspot.com

Thank you.

Loraine Rickard-Martin

Suggested email to FAFICS

President@fafics.orgSecretary@fafics.org

cc. Afics@un.org (NY-based retirees) or your local FAFICS association

Subject: Protecting the interests of UN retirees: pension and after-service health insurance

Dear President Shah,

I am writing as a UN retiree concerned about whether our interests are being adequately represented on two issues fundamental to our long-term security: our pension and After-Service Health Insurance (ASHI).

Even if I have previously communicated with FAFICS about these issues, I am sending this letter because important new information has emerged concerning the continuing rise in health-care costs and the need for independent auditing and verification of the UN's self-funded health-insurance plans. This letter therefore supersedes any previous communication I may have sent on these matters.

The urgency of the ASHI issue has been underscored by today's New York Times report, “Employer Health Costs Are Expected to Spike in 2027.” The report projects that employer health-care costs will rise sharply again next year, reinforcing the concern that rising health-care costs are likely to remain a continuing pressure on participants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/02/business/health-insurance-increases.html

For UN retirees, this raises a fundamental question: if health-care costs are expected to continue rising, what independent assurance do we have that the costs underlying our self-funded health plans are being adequately scrutinized and that measures described as cost containment are actually producing the savings claimed?

I would appreciate a clear response on what FAFICS is doing to safeguard retirees' interests, particularly on the following:

Pension: What position is FAFICS taking on the General Assembly's mandated pension review, including possible changes in pension design and proposals to lower costs or contributions? What safeguards does FAFICS believe are necessary to protect accrued pension rights and the integrity of the existing defined-benefit system? Does FAFICS regard COLA as an integral component of accrued pension rights?

The broader political context also warrants attention. An April 2026 Devex report identified UN pension reform as one of the “quick wins” the U.S. government intended to seek from the UN in connection with payment of U.S. UN dues. What position is FAFICS taking regarding this external pressure for pension reform and cost reduction?

ASHI: What concerns or recommendations has FAFICS conveyed to the UN Administration regarding the affordability and sustainability of ASHI, including this year's significant premium increases?

The need for independent oversight is particularly important. The Board of Auditors raised concerns about inadequate controls and reported in 2019 that the last audit of actual medical claims had been conducted in 2010 (A/74/5 (Vol. I)).An “open-book” audit was subsequently undertaken in 2022, but its findings do not appear to have been made public. The JIU's 2023 review (JIU/REP/2023/9) found that most UN health-insurance schemes were not regularly audited and that cost-containment measures generally could not demonstrate the savings achieved.

These findings are difficult to reconcile with continuing substantial increases in premiums and the repeated emphasis on cost containment.

What independent assurance exists that the costs underlying the UN's health-insurance plans are being adequately scrutinized and that the cost-containment measures relied upon by the Administration are actually producing the savings claimed?

There is also the question of timely communication. The 1 May town hall did not include information about this year's premium increases because the new premiums had not yet been finalized, and many retirees were not aware that the town hall was taking place. Information about the premium increases was subsequently provided after the June 2026 enrollment period, leaving retirees without timely information that could have enabled them to consider whether to change plans.

Did FAFICS raise concerns about this lack of timely communication and about whether retirees were given a meaningful opportunity to make informed choices during the enrollment period?

Finally, FAFICS presents itself as representing the interests of UN retirees. How does FAFICS consult its affiliated associations in developing its positions, and how does it ensure that the interests of retirees who are not members of those associations are also taken into account?

These issues are too important for retirees simply to assume that our interests are being adequately safeguarded. We need to know what FAFICS is advocating, what positions it is taking, what safeguards it considers necessary, and how it intends to defend retirees' interests throughout the pension review and in decisions affecting ASHI.

I would therefore appreciate a substantive response to these questions.

Sincerely,

[Name]

UN retiree

Suggested email to HLIS

HLIS@un.org, cc ASHI@un.org, cc Afics@un.org, (NY-based retirees) or your local FAFICS association 

NY-based UN retirees: cc Afics@un.orgUN retirees based elsewhere, please copy the head of the local Fafics association.

Subject: After-Service Health Insurance: rising costs, independent oversight and timely information

Dear Head of HLIS,

I am writing as a UN retiree concerned about this year's ASHI premium increases and, more broadly, about how decisions affecting retirees are justified, independently overseen and communicated.

Even if I have previously communicated with HLIS about ASHI, I am sending this letter because important new information has emerged concerning the continuing rise in health-care costs and the need for independent auditing and verification of the costs underlying the UN's self-funded health-insurance plans. This letter therefore supersedes any previous communication I may have sent on these matters.

Today's New York Times report, “Employer Health Costs Are Expected to Spike in 2027,” makes this issue particularly timely. The report projects that employer health-care costs will rise sharply again next year, reinforcing the concern that rising health-care costs are likely to remain a significant and continuing pressure on participants.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/02/business/health-insurance-increases.html

That makes independent scrutiny of those costs and of the effectiveness of cost-containment measures increasingly important.

I appreciate HLIS's explanation that this year's increases reflect rising health-care costs, utilization, specialty medications and other factors, and that the Health Insurance Committee considers claims experience, utilization, reserves and other information when making recommendations.

But two fundamental questions remain.

First, what is HLIS's role in developing and reviewing premiums, and to what extent can it recommend or advocate measures to contain costs? More importantly, how are the effectiveness and claimed savings of those cost-containment measures independently assessed and verified?

This question is particularly important given the history of oversight of the UN's self-funded health-insurance plans.

The Board of Auditors reported in 2019 that the last audit of actual medical claims had been conducted in 2010 (A/74/5 (Vol. I)). An “open-book” audit was subsequently undertaken in 2022, but its findings do not appear to have been made public. More recently, the JIU's 2023 review (JIU/REP/2023/9) found that most UN health-insurance schemes were not regularly audited and that cost-containment measures generally could not demonstrate the savings achieved.

These are significant findings.

If the plans are self-funded and participants are being asked to pay substantially higher premiums because costs must be contained, there should be clear, independent assurance that the costs are properly scrutinized and that measures presented as cost-saving actually deliver the savings claimed.

Please explain what independent audit or verification mechanisms currently exist, who conducts them, how often they are undertaken, and whether their findings are made available to participants.

Second, what is HLIS doing to ensure that all ASHI participants receive timely and clear information before significant changes take effect?

This year's experience raises particular concerns. The 1 May town hall did not include information about the premium increases, since the new premiums had not yet been finalized, and many retirees were not aware that the town hall was taking place. Information about the premium increases was subsequently provided after the June 2026 enrollment period.

As a result, retirees did not have timely information about the increases and therefore did not have a meaningful opportunity during the enrollment period to consider whether changing plans might be appropriate.

What steps is HLIS taking to ensure that retirees receive important information about changes to premiums and benefits before, rather than after, the enrollment period in which they may need to make decisions?

Finally, given the likelihood that health-care costs will continue to rise, what longer-term measures are being considered to protect the sustainability and affordability of ASHI without simply transferring an increasing share of the costs to retirees?

I would appreciate a substantive response to these questions, particularly concerning independent auditing and verification of health-care costs and the effectiveness of cost-containment measures.

Thank you for your attention to these concerns.

Best regards,

[Name]

UN retiree


Relevant articles:

https://unpension.blogspot.com/2026/05/quick-wins-and-slow-erosion-whats-at.html

https://unpension.blogspot.com/2026/08/a-reality-check-on-fafics-un-retirees.html 

https://unpension.blogspot.com/2026/08/un-health-insurance-whats-changing-in.html

https://unpension.blogspot.com/2026/08/un-pension-fund-members-avaaz-petition.html

 

 

 

Saturday, August 15, 2026

UN Pension Fund members: Avaaz petition is from 15 March 2022. It is moot! 15 August 2026

 UN Pension Fund Members,

If you have received an Avaaz petition titled "Secretary-General Antonio Guterres: Don't hand our UN pension fund to Wall Street", see below message from Ian Richards, Vice President, Conditions of Service, CCISUA, dated 14 August 2026. Please disregard the petition. 


"Ian Richards

LINKEDIN 
• 1st
Helping governments use digital and AI
14 August 2026 • Edited • 

πŸ‡ΊπŸ‡³ Some of you will have seen this petition about the UN pension fund outsourcing investmentsπŸ‘‡πŸΌ

While it has gone viral in recent days, it dates from 2022 and the matter is now fortunately settled. 

The petition was launched by the Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations (CCISUA) in response to plans announced at the time to externalise the management of up to 75 percent of the fund’s fixed income portfolio.

Following the petition, a staff townhall and a number of letters from CCISUA, the fund reconsidered its position. As a result of this staff mobilisation less than 20 percent is currently outsourced.

Therefore if you receive the petition you can disregard it; the issue is moot."

Friday, August 7, 2026

UN Health Insurance: What's Changing in 2026, 7 August 2026

UN Health Insurance Changes Effective 1 July 2026 - and analysis of information presented in the HLIS webinar, 21 May 2026



By Loraine Rickard-Martin

Summary by AI. Participants are advised to check the actual documents.  


 The UN's 2026 health insurance changes are set out in two separate Information Circulars.

ST/IC/2026/2 covers five Headquarters-administered health plans:

  • Aetna PPO/POS
  • Anthem PPO
  • HIP Health Plan of New York
  • UN Worldwide Plan
  • Cigna US Dental PPO


ST/IC/2026/3 covers the separate Medical Insurance Plan (MIP) for locally recruited staff at designated duty stations away from Headquarters. The MIP has three regional versions, administered by Cigna.


Both sets of changes took effect 1 July 2026.


For retirees, the Headquarters-administered plans, particularly the UN Worldwide Plan, Aetna and Anthem, are the most relevant.


1. UN Worldwide Plan


The UN Worldwide Plan (WWP) is one of the five Headquarters-administered plans covered by ST/IC/2026/2.


What changed?

Change

Effect on participant

Premium +15%

πŸ”΄ Pay more

Physical therapy: 60 → 30 visits/year

πŸ”΄ Less coverage

Annual-limit benefits excluded from Major Medical

πŸ”΄ Less protection against very high expenses

Out-of-pocket threshold: $200 → $600 per person; $600 → $1,800 per family

πŸ”΄ Pay substantially more before additional protection begins

Second surgical opinions: 100% → 80%

πŸ”΄ Pay more

Private rooms covered only when medically necessary

πŸ”΄ More restricted coverage

Fertility treatment: 6 IUI + 6 IVF lifetime

πŸ”΄ New lifetime limits

Annual check-up restricted to essential screenings

πŸ”΄ Narrower coverage

Nursing care clarified: up to 8 hours/day for first 30 days, then 4 hours/day

🟒 Clearer coverage


Bottom line


The biggest changes for Worldwide Plan participants are the 15% premium increase, much higher out-of-pocket threshold, reduced physical therapy, and weaker Major Medical protection.


The nursing-care provision is the principal positive change.


The UN also states that the Worldwide Plan is not designed to provide adequate coverage for the high cost of healthcare in the United States. Participants who live in the United States or expect to receive regular care there should therefore consider whether a U.S.-based plan is more appropriate.



2. Aetna PPO/POS

What changed?

Change

Effect on participant

Premium +35%

πŸ”΄ Pay substantially more

No specific new benefit reductions identified in ST/IC/2026/2

— The circular does not identify major new coverage reductions for Aetna


The 35% premium increase is the largest among the five Headquarters-administered plans.


The circular does not identify specific new benefit reductions for Aetna comparable to those announced for Anthem and the Worldwide Plan.


Bottom line


Aetna participants face a 35% premium increase, with no specific new benefit reductions identified in the circular.


3. Anthem PPO


What changed?


Change

Effect on participant

Premium +16%

πŸ”΄ Pay more

Physical therapy: 60 → 30 visits/year

πŸ”΄ Less coverage

Annual out-of-network deductible for covered care outside the U.S. waived

🟒 Potentially more favorable for participants receiving care outside the U.S.


The reduction in physical-therapy visits is the principal negative benefit change.


The waiver of the annual out-of-network deductible for covered care received outside the United States is a potentially useful improvement.


Bottom line


Anthem participants pay 16% more and receive fewer physical-therapy visits, but gain relief from the annual out-of-network deductible for covered care outside the United States.


4. HIP Health Plan of New York


What changed?

Change

Effect on participant

Premium +7.16%

πŸ”΄ Pay more

No specific new benefit reductions identified in ST/IC/2026/2

— The circular does not identify major new coverage reductions for HIP

The 7.16% premium increase is the principal change identified for HIP in the circular.


Bottom line


HIP participants pay 7.16% more, with no specific new benefit reductions identified in the circular.



5. Cigna US Dental PPO


What changed?


Change

Effect on participant

Premium +5%

πŸ”΄ Pay more

No specific new benefit reductions identified in ST/IC/2026/2

— The circular does not identify major new coverage reductions for the dental plan

The 5% premium increase is the principal change identified for the dental plan.


Bottom line


Cigna Dental participants pay 5% more, with no specific new benefit reductions identified in the circular.



6. Medical Insurance Plan (MIP)


ST/IC/2026/3 covers the separate Medical Insurance Plan (MIP) for locally recruited staff at designated duty stations away from Headquarters. The MIP has three regional versions, administered by Cigna:

  • Africa
  • Asia-Pacific
  • Europe and the Americas


What changed?


Change

Effect on participant

Higher premiums/contributions

πŸ”΄ Pay more. The circular says the new rates are 40% higher than those in ST/IC/2015/8. This is a comparison with the 2015 schedule, not a 40% increase in 2026 alone.

Outpatient emergency-room reimbursement: 100% → 80%

πŸ”΄ Pay more when using an outpatient ER

Annual-limit benefits excluded from stop-loss/hardship protection

πŸ”΄ Less protection against very high medical expenses

Nursing care: up to 8 hours/day for first 30 days

🟒 Clearer coverage

Nursing care after 30 days: up to 4 hours/day

🟑 More limited thereafter


Bottom line

The most significant MIP changes are higher premiums, a new 20% cost share for outpatient emergency-room care, and weaker protection against catastrophic expenses for benefits subject to annual limits.


The principal positive change is the clarification of nursing-care coverage.


What explains the premium increases?


The 21 May 2026 AFICS/HLIS webinar provides important context.


HLIS explained that these are self-funded plans. Premiums are based on the projected cost of the plans, including claims costs and administrative fees. The presentation also explained that the financial risk when claims exceed premium collections is borne directly by the Organization.


HLIS presented loss ratios for Aetna, Anthem, Cigna Dental and the Worldwide Plan for the 2022–23 through 2025–26 insurance years. The presentation defines the loss ratio as programme costs divided by premiums collected and notes that when the loss ratio exceeds 100%, premium increases are required. 


The 2025–26 figures were projected using nine months of paid claims.


This is useful information. It shows that the premium increases are not arbitrary and that claims costs are an important driver.


But it does not answer every question.


The presentation does not quantify how much of each premium increase is attributable to the different factors. Nor does it provide a detailed breakdown of administrative costs or show how much particular cost-containment measures are saving.


That distinction matters.


Saying that premiums are based on claims costs plus administrative fees explains the basic mechanism


It does not tell participants exactly why a particular premium increased by 15%, 16%, 35% or 7.16%, or what portion of those increases reflects claims experience, utilization, medical inflation or administrative costs.


What is being done to control costs?


The 21 May presentation also says that self-funding provides the UN with greater oversight and strategic control over plan design, financing and long-term sustainability.


That is significant.


It means that HLIS and the Organization are not simply passive purchasers of commercial insurance. 


They have considerable responsibility for managing the plans and controlling costs.


The presentation therefore provides some reassurance that cost control is part of the UN's role. But it does not give participants a detailed picture of what HLIS is actually doing to reduce costs, how much those measures are saving, or how the savings compare with the increases in medical costs.


This is an important unanswered question.


Conclusion

The 2026 changes are not identical across the UN's health plans, but there is a clear overall pattern.

All five Headquarters-administered plans have higher premiums:

Plan

2026 premium increase

Aetna PPO/POS

35%

Anthem PPO

16%

UN Worldwide Plan

15%

HIP

7.16%

Cigna US Dental PPO

5%

At the same time, Anthem and the Worldwide Plan have specific benefit changes that reduce coverage in some areas, although Anthem also gains a potentially useful waiver of the out-of-network deductible for covered care outside the United States.

The MIP has its own separate set of changes, including higher premiums, increased cost-sharing for outpatient emergency-room care and weaker stop-loss/hardship protection for certain expenses.

The 21 May HLIS presentation provides some important context. It explains that the plans are self-funded, that premiums are based on projected claims costs and administrative fees, and that the UN bears the financial risk when claims exceed premium collections. The loss-ratio data also show the financial pressure facing several of the plans.

But important questions remain. Participants and retirees deserve greater transparency about:

  • how much of each premium increase reflects claims experience, utilization, medical inflation and administrative costs;
  • why particular benefits were reduced or restricted, and what savings those changes are expected to produce;
  • what alternatives were considered before increasing participant costs or reducing benefits; and
  • what HLIS is doing to control costs, and what measurable savings those efforts have achieved.

So the issue is not whether HLIS has explained why premiums are rising. It has provided a general explanation. 

The question is whether participants have enough information to understand how the increases were calculated, why these particular changes were chosen, and whether all reasonable cost-containment measures have been pursued before shifting more costs and financial risk onto participants.

For retirees and other participants, that is ultimately a question of affordability, benefit adequacy and accountability.

A final question: what is being done to ensure that UN retirees receive information about changes in insurance plans, in a timely manner, to make informed decisions.