By Bob Hennelly

A split within the Municipal Labor Committee over the future of the healthcare coverage for New York City’s 250,000 municipal retirees is playing out behind the scenes at the City Council over a controversial MLC proposal to change the city’s Administrative Code 12-126 that requires the City Council’s  approval. 

The MLC is the umbrella organization for scores of unions that represent over 300,000 municipal workers. The change, which would alter the existing language covering healthcare for retirees, is also supported by the city’s Office of Labor Relations and the Adams administration.

The controversy is an outgrowth of last year’s successful retiree revolt against then-Mayor Bill de Blasio and the Municipal Labor Committee’s proposal to shift retirees to a privatized Medicare Advantage program in hopes of realizing some savings.

City Hall and the MLC said the plan, branded as Retiree Health Alliance, which was going to be run by Anthem and Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, would produce $600 million in savings with no degradation in coverage. Retired civil servants and the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees  countered the change threatened retirees’ continuity of care, would cost more and would cover less.

Tens of thousands of city retirees opted out. One key issue was a requirement that city retirees who opted out of the new offering would have to pay a $191 monthly premium for their old plan. Subsequently,  the two health insurance companies fronting the controversial plan withdrew. 

The New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees successfully challenged  the city in court bringing the implementation of the plan to a standstill at the start of the Adam’s administration. That litigation continues. 

In his decision, Judge Lyle Frank, ruled that thanks to the city’s Administrative Code 12-126, on the books since the 1960s, the city was obliged to continue providing retirees with their healthcare without charging them a premium.

Marianne Pizzitola is a retired FDNY EMT and was a member of DC 37’s Local 2507. Pizzitola is also the president of the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees. In a Sept. 24 op-ed in the Daily News she praised the city’s existing administrative code that guaranteed “the city would pay for a choice of health insurance plans—up to a defined dollar cap. For 55 years, every teacher, firefighter, police officer, nurse and others who served the city knew  they would have access to a health insurance plan that met their families’ needs.”

Last month, the MLC voted to ask the City Council to alter the Administrative Code 12-126 as requested by the city’s Office of Labor Relations to clear the way for the implementation of a Medicare Advantage program.

The vote was not unanimous. 

Though the MLC’s largest unions like District Council 37, the United Federation of Teachers, Teamsters Local 831 (Uniformed Sanitation-men’s Association) support the change, several unions opposed it, including the Uniformed Fire Officers Association and the Uniformed Firefighters Association. 

In a Sept. 9 letter to his members, James Davis, president of the Professional Staff Congress explained why his union opposed the change.

“The proposed change eliminates the HIP-HMO rate as the single standard for determining the City’s obligation to pay for health insurance for city employees, retirees and their dependents,” explained Davis. “Under current law, the city is required to ‘pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, city retirees, and their dependents, not to exceed one hundred percent of the full cost of HIP-HMO…’ (NYC Administrative Code, section 12-1260.)

Harry Nespoli, chair of the MLC and the president of Teamsters Local 831 did not return a call seeking comment. 

Retirees who oppose the shift to a Medicare Advantage plan point to a recent study by the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General  that found the plans run by for profit providers showed that the “plans  sometimes denied or delayed patients’ access to medically necessary services, even though the requests met Medicare coverage rules.”

“We have a lot of retirees that are calling that are confused as to why there is a need for a law change. They are against any of these changes,” UFA President Andy Ansbro said during a phone interview.  “They want to keep their healthcare plan the way it is. They have reached out to us demanding that we get in front of this and we have explained to them that we have been a no vote on this change, and at this point it is in the City Council’s hands — and if they wish to make their voice heard they have to call their City Council member and speak to them, and we ask that they speak with them respectfully, but just get your point across you don’t believe this law should be changed.”

Ansbro continued. “The down side is we don’t know what the long term consequences are. We understand the short term consequences if they feel they will be able to make their Medicare Advantage Plan legal but if the courts rule that what you are trying to do is illegal, trying to change the law is not the way to go about it. You should go back to the drawing board and come up with a plan that’s actually legal.”

“The UFOA voted no in the MLC Steering committee and again voted NO in the general membership meeting,” wrote FDNY Lieut. James McCarthy in a text. “The fight against the change in the administrative code continues on the the City Council. Our active and retired members will also be expressing their opposition to the City Council.”

“The changes proposed would allow New York City, with the approval of the majority of the MLC, to create different classes of employees in reference to health insurance,” warned a UFOA blast email to all of its members and retirees. “This change would then allow New York City to give different health insurance plans to each class. The proposal will also remove HIP HMO as the benchmark for establishing the rate that the city must pay to maintain premium free healthcare for all active and retired members. This seismic change in language MUST BE STOPPED!”

The UFOA continued. “How did we get here…. Over a year ago NYC rolled out the option of Medicare Advantage and described it as a mirror of the current Senior Care Plan. The reality was our members' benefits and access to healthcare would be diminished. Multiple lawsuits were filed, and the rollout of Medicare Advantage was delayed by the judge’s ruling. The City has appealed, and the case will be heard in October. As a result of this pending decision, the city has chosen to change the Administrative Code.”

State Senator Gustavo Rivera, chair of the Senate Health Committee, is a one of the lead sponsors of the New York Health Act which calls for establishing a single payer healthcare system that would decouple healthcare coverage from employment.

“We are at a moment where we have to take all the realities that are around us and think about how we actually solve the problems that are before us,” Rivera said. “Committing ourselves by doubling down on a system that has insurance companies at its core is exactly the wrong direction to go in. But this is exactly what’s happening with the city shifting retirees' benefits for the sake of ‘saving money’ — when what you are really doing is taking away the benefits that were negotiated for the folks that are retirees. What I am telling these retirees and everybody else, is that healthcare is a right and we should act like it.”