A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
The city must continue to pay the entire cost of health insurance for city workers, retirees and their dependents, the state’s highest court has ruled, a decision that represents a significant setback to the Adams administration’s plan to shift retired municipal workers to privately administered Medicare Advantage plans.
In a unanimous opinion issued Tuesday, the Court of Appeals found that the city's administrative code requires the city to pay up to the statutory cap for all plans it offers to its employees and former workers, including, for the city’s roughly 250,000 retirees, Medicare supplement insurance, or so-called Medigap plans.
The ruling, though, did not address whether the city is in fact obliged to offer a particular plan, including Medigap plans, leaving open the possibility, however slight, that the city could succeed in convincing the appeals panel, in another, ongoing case, that it is not statutorily compelled to do so.
The city had argued that while it could offer multiple benefit plans, it is not obligated to pay for any single one or even compelled to offer a Medigap plan, much less foot the bill for that portion of retirees' benefits.
The seven-judge appeals panel, though, was apparently swayed by the argument that the authorizing statute governing the municipal employee health program references an “entire suite of plans,” rather than just one, as the lawyer for the retirees, Jacob Gardener, argued before the court last month.
Speaking at a Tuesday afternoon press event outside the City Hall gates, Gardener said that while he was “incredibly grateful” for the Court of Appeals' decision, he added that the fight to preserves retirees’ health benefits was ongoing, given relentless pressure from the Adams administration and powerful municipal unions to usher the retired workers into the private plan.
“Unfortunately, every time we achieve a victory, and we've achieved many in the last three years, the city finds a new way to double down on its unlawful campaign to force retirees into private Medicare Advantage plans,” Gardener said. “That limits retirees access to their doctors and denies, regularly denies coverage for medical care.”
Marianne Pizzitola, the president of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, again called on the Adams administration and the city’s larger public-sector unions, among them District Council 37 and the United Federation of Teachers, to abandon their campaign to switch the retirees to a Medicare Advantage plan. Pizzitola, her allies and the retirees have long insisted the private plans are significantly inferior to their current coverage.
“To put all of these people 250,000 retirees, widows, widowers, line of duty widows and widowers, 911 responders, elderly and the disabled. This to me is criminal that this has kept on going this far,” she said at Tuesday's press event. As she has for months, Pizzitola implored Adams to discuss the matter with her. “We can do this if he sits with me,” she said, alluding to a solution to the impasse.
Failing that, city officials must now pin their effort to switch the retirees to what the Appeals Court decides in a related case. Arguments in that case are forthcoming in the new year, with a ruling expected in the spring. “While we are disappointed in the court’s decision today, we will continue to pursue the Medicare Advantage plan — which would improve upon retirees’ current health plan and save hundreds of millions of dollars annually — and await the court’s next decision in the coming year,” a City Hall spokesperson, Liz Garcia, said in an emailed statement.
Although Gardener declined to speculate on that case’s outcome, he did note that this most recent ruling was unanimous. “Among the seven judges, they thought that it was very clear that the law requires the city to pay the entire cost of retirees’ health insurance,” he said at the presser. “And I don't want to read the tea leaves, but I do think that is a strong signal of where the court comes out on the broader issue of retiree health care benefits.”
Union discussion
The decision landed a day after Pizzitola and dozens of city retirees crowded into the DC 37’s lobby to try and crash a meeting called by the union’s executive director, Henry Garrido, who had invited City Council members to the union hall to discuss health care issues — notably the city’s proposed switch of the retirees into a Medicare Advantage plan, which Garrido champions.
Speaking to the retirees, Pizzitola underlined the argument she and the retirees have been making: That the proposed switch is essentially a way for larger municipal unions, such as DC 37 and the United Federation of Teachers, to fund raises for active city workers, a maneuver she called “a disgrace.”
Pizzitola said Garrido was unjustified in trying to kindle opposition to recently introduced City Council legislation that would preserve the retirees’ current benefits: government-administered Medicare and supplemental insurance.
“We don't collectively bargain,” she said in the union hall. “Those are the deals that we made when we were employed. Those are the deals that they have to maintain. We say promises made, promises kept for a reason. We earned our benefits. They're not for Henry to sell off.”
She also pushed back on union arguments that the bill, sponsored by Manhattan City Council Member Christopher Marte, was not funded. Like other mandates governed by city statute — including the retirees’ current health care — it would be paid for through the city budget, she and others argue.
Marte, who attended the union’s meeting, said last week that it was imperative to pass his bill since allies of the incoming Trump administration have backed the privatization of Medicare across the board. “I think especially now with the threat of this administration, we have to take action fairly quickly,” he said. “We can't protect what happens in the rest of the country, but we can surely protect the people who served New York City.”
Speaking at the press event Tuesday, Marte said it was unreasonable to argue that the city cannot afford to keep the retirees in their current health plans. He suggested that the next fiscal year’s city budget would clock in at about $115 billion — reflecting a roughly 10 percent increase over the current spending plan. “We don't have money to protect 250,000 retirees?” he asked rhetorically. “I think we do.”
Marte, though, has indicated that he is amenable to amending his bill to meet some of the union’s objections.
In a letter to DC 37 retirees sent earlier this month, Garrido said Marte’s bill was both “shortsighted” and unlawful. But he credited the Council member for noting during his meeting with Marte and his colleagues that he was open to modifying the legislation.
Garrido, speaking by phone following the meeting, said he wanted to meet with Council members to discuss, in general, health care issues as they concern the municipal workforce, which, counting retirees, numbers 300,000 people and, he said, costs the city some $13 billion annually.
He said he wanted to “make sure that they understood that the one thing that we have as a primary guidance is that we want no city workers to pay for premiums.”
Regarding Marte’s bill, he said he was concerned that it would essentially sanction an unfunded mandate. “I was concerned that [the legislation] was an unfortunate liability because it required us as a city to pay for health insurance in perpetuity … without identifying any source of funding.”
He said the union has been out front on the topic of health care — and endorsing the proposed Medicare Advantage switch — since his members, many of whom have city residency requirements, are among the lowest-paid municipal workers. He cautioned that if the health care status quo persists, the anger among city workers would be double that of the retirees’ irritation at the proposed switch.
But Garrido characterized the meeting as productive. “It was an open conversation,” he said. “I think when people are reasonable, who get together who are reasonable, you got a right to disagree and you can come up with compromises.”
Court decisions such as Tuesday’s could yet oblige both sides to carve out an understanding.
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
DOTHERIGHTTHING
Mulgrew another key player in this healthcare debacle has already withdrew support for MA.In fact the UFT have voted to support intro bill 1096.Protection of NYC Medicare Retirees Healthcare.
Garrido now it's your turn to end 4 YEARS of healthcare madness! Sit down with Marianne NOW!
Tuesday, December 17, 2024 Report this
krell1349
Yes, time for Garrido to get on board. Also time for the City to sit down with Marianne.
Wednesday, December 18, 2024 Report this
RayMarkey
Henry Garrido sounds more like the Labor Relations Director of NYC than the Executive Director of DC37. Apparently after reading his comments in this article his only solution is givebacks. What else does it mean to force the current and future retirees of DC37 off Traditional Medicare into a Medicare Advantage Plan. If he were to succeed the only people cheering such an outcome would be Mayor Adams and Aetna. Fortunately he is not succeeding as this article makes very clear. Time for Henry Garrido to change course and act like a trade union leader.
Ray Markey
President
New York Public Library Retirees Association.
Wednesday, December 18, 2024 Report this
Uncleant
It kills me that I have worked for NYCTA for 15 years, and have a legal contract for healthcare that I payed into that can be discontinued while illegal immigrants get all the benefits from healthcare to housing for free. Does that appear to be fair or legal?
Thursday, December 19, 2024 Report this
namrogm
Many thanks, Richard, for all the information on the retirees battle against those who would reduce NYC retirees’ healthcare to pay for current city workers’ raises. And thanks, Marianne P for the legal war you have waged to protect our healthcare.
Wednesday, December 25, 2024 Report this