On July 7, a state Supreme Court judge temporarily blocked a contentious plan to switch retired city government employees over to a Medicare Advantage plan, ushering in a big win for the plan’s retired critics.
Judge Lyle E. Frank issued the injunction days before a deadline that would have forced roughly a quarter of a million retirees to decide whether to opt out of the new private Medicare Advantage plan run by Aetna that the city estimates would save roughly $600 million per year.
With the impending deadline scuttled, the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees held a press conference July 12 recommitting to its legislative strategy in support of a City Council bill introduced by Councilman Charles Barron that would amend the city’s administrative code to allow retirees to opt out of the new plan.
“This was a good day for us,” said Marianne Pizzitola, the public retiree org president. “We know that this is temporary and this is why, instead of just relying upon the court for justice, Councilman Barron asked if he could spearhead our legislation, which would protect retirees.”
The judge ruled that the city cannot remove retirees from their current plan — traditional Medicare with supplemental coverage — until the court rules on a lawsuit against the switch that a group of retirees filed May 31st. It’s the third in a series of legal actions the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees has taken to block the new healthcare plan.
The ruling was made on the basis that retirees were likely to win their suit due to a section of the city’s administrative code that says it “will pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage” for workers, retirees and their dependents. Judge Frank also found that the July 10 deadline could result in “irreparable harm” to vulnerable retirees, citing an acknowledgement by the Aetna attorney that “there would very likely be situations where medical care deemed to be needed by a doctor for a retiree could be turned down, and certain medical facilities would be unavailable to retirees.”
A spokesperson for the mayor suggested that City Hall is looking to appeal the decision, asserting that the plan, which was negotiated with the municipal Labor committee, improves upon retirees’ current plans.
“We are extremely disappointed by this misguided ruling,” said the City Hall spokesperson. “Further delay in implementing it will only cause greater uncertainty for our retirees and have a detrimental impact on our city’s budget. We are exploring our appellate options.”
PIzzitola said that the retiree group will have to wait for its next court case to progress for further developments on the litigation, which will likely happen over the coming months.
In the meantime the group is turning to its legislative strategy: Barron’s Council Bill 1099, which would require the City to continue its Medigap plan that the retirees have now.
City Hall has stated that it strongly opposes this legislation on the basis that it impinges on the Municipal Labor Committee’s ability to negotiate with the city on health coverage and its potential expense.
“Intro 1099 would not only impinge on that process; if implemented, it would also create significant fiscal impacts for the city that would need to be addressed,” said a City Hall spokesperson.
In an interview with Labor Press, Pizzitola shot back against the talking point that the Council bill would prevent the union leaders from collectively negotiating over healthcare. To support her view, she cited a meeting between the Patrolman’s Benevolent Association and MLC lawyer Alan Klinger, in which Klinger said the bill “can’t by itself determine what happens for [active members]” but that it will put enormous financial pressure on the process.
“Pass Intro 1099, and let them take it to a Judge,” Pizzitola wrote in a statement.
The bill currently has 14 Council sponsors. It would need 34 for a veto-proof majority. Barron, who lost his primary election in June, has until the end of his tenure at the end of the year to push the legislative forward.
