City Council Cool To ‘Callous Attempt To Strip Existing Healthcare Coverage From Thousands’

NYC Council Member Ari Kagan speaks with municipal retirees outside the gates of City Hall on Jan. 4. Photo by Joe Maniscalco

By Bob Hennelly

No members of the City Council spoke in favor of a controversial bill introduced Jan. 4 that would alter the city’s Administrative Code that covers the provision of health insurance for its employees that’s being advanced by the Adams administration and the Municipal Labor Committee.

But three Council Members, representing the full range of the body’s political views, blasted the measure that’s strongly opposed by the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees, other retiree groups and several unions — including the Uniform Fire Officers Association — that contend the change will make it easier for the city to force 250,000 retirees into a private insurance Medicare Advantage program.

Before the Council convened their first meeting of the New Year, dozens of city retirees loudly protested directly outside the City Hall gates. Two people who attempted to gain access to what was advertised as a public meeting of the whole body say they were told by NYPD officers the meeting was closed to the public. Law enforcement sources offered conflicting accounts of the internal guidance that controlled access. There were a handful of members of the general public in the largely empty second floor gallery.

The meeting only lasted just over 22 minutes.

The night before the measure was introduced by Council Member Carmen De La Rosa, the chair of the Civil Service and Labor Committee, De La Rosa and Speaker Adrienne Adams issued a joint statement saying that the change in the Administrative Code being proposed would actually “preserve retirees’ choice of health insurance rather than have them automatically enrolled in Medicare Advantage as the sole plan on January 29” as proscribed last month by Martin Scheinman, an arbitrator working with the Adams administration and the MLC.

In that same statement De La Rosa and Adams said the city was obligated to “support for low-income retirees to truly access choice in their healthcare coverage, reigning in the runaway costs of care that created this crisis, and guaranteeing an insurance program that benefits all of our dedicated public servants.”

“I am shocked by this administration’s callous attempt to strip existing healthcare coverage from thousands of our city’s retirees and stand firmly in opposition,” said Council Member Shahana Hanif, co-chair of the Council’s Progressive Caucus. I reject any changes to Administrative Code 121-26. The privatization of healthcare for our city’s retirees is an abject failure.

In a deeply personal statement Shahana, 32, described her 15-year battle with Lupus, an “incurable and unpredictable disease that has resulted in three hip replacements, one shoulder replacement surgery, countless drugs, more hospitalizations, X-Rays. MRIs and scans than I can count. And so much blood has been drawn for me to understand what is going on with my body.”   

The Brooklyn Council Member said that her previous employment as Council staffer assured “access to high quality health insurance” when she “needed it most” — but that “one day” she would be “a retired city worker and much like the hundreds of constituents I have heard from” who have expressed opposition to the change being sought by the Adams administration and MLC.

Republican Council Member Joann Ariola, who chairs the Fire and Emergency Services Committee, told her colleagues a vote for the change would violate a “promise” to city employees that “they could enjoy their golden years” without anxiety about their healthcare coverage.

Council Member Ari Kagan, who recently defected from the Democratic to the Republicans, also used the proforma introduction of the legislation to pledge his opposition. “I have plenty of municipal retirees in my district and I got hundreds and hundreds of emails — everybody is opposing it,” Kagan said in a City Hall interview after the meeting. “Inflation is very high right now and as I said on my social media today, a promise was made. These people took these jobs, and they knew the salary might not be very high, but they knew they would get some pension benefits and healthcare benefits.”

The Adams administration and the MLC claims time is of the essence because its Health Stabilization Fund, created in 1984, used to cover healthcare obligations and help defray premium costs, is running out of money, putting at risk the premium-free health care that active city employees continue to enjoy.

The ongoing debate is an outgrowth of last year’s blowback from a coalition of municipal retirees 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 a $600 million savings which was supported by Mayor Eric Adams. The NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees countered the move threatened retirees’ continuity of care, would cost more, and would cover less as providers would squeeze more profits out of the conversion.

The New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees successfully challenged the city in court bringing the implementation of its Medicare Advantage plan to a standstill at the start of the Adams’ administration. 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.

That court decision for the retirees was upheld on appeal.

The MLC’s proposal for Medicare Advantage is the outgrowth of deals it cut with the de Blasio administration to find billions of dollars in healthcare costs savings as unions settled contracts that Mayor Bloomberg had left unsettled for years. The collaboration between management and the MLC included the creation of a Tripartite Health Insurance Committee chaired by Martin Scheinman, who would act as the arbitrator over any disputes that arose out of implementation of the Committee’s initiatives.

In an October 28, letter Office of Labor Relations Commissioner Renee Campion warned that unless the Council passed the change to Administrative Code 12-126 by Nov. 4, the Adams administration “would seek relief” from mediator Scheinman, to order a change that would also comply with a standing order from the state judge that the city continue to provide retirees a single health insurance plan without a premium option.

“The City continues to lose $50 million a month for every month this plan is delayed, putting our shared goals in significant jeopardy,” Campion wrote.

On Dec. 15, in what Scheinman captioned an “award” and “decision”, the arbitrator said the city should follow through with a Medicare Advantage provider by Jan. 9, 2023, with a plan to take effect July 1, 2023. 

After the meeting, Council Member Gale Brewer, chair of the Council Oversight Committee and a veteran Democrat, said that even though the bill had been introduced there was no timeline because she did not believe that arbitrator Martin Scheinman had “legal standing” to set deadlines. “Lawyers are divided on this but if there’s some opportunity for everyone to sit down and come together that might make something still possible — if not, then I won’t be supportive [of the change].”

She said the stakeholders in the debate could not ignore the growing cloud surrounding Medicare Advantage following investigative reports in the New York Times and Kaiser Health News that documented that the private plans were ripping off the federal government while restricting retirees access to critical medical care.

“A central concern about the capitated payment model used in Medicare Advantage is the incentive to inappropriately deny access to, or reimbursement for, health care services in an attempt to increase profits for managed care plans,” according to the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

“Let me give you an example,” Brewer said. “I got a call the other day from somebody who has to go for chemo treatment, and she also has to take a blood thinner pill. The doctor said to her last week that under her current insurance this pill is covered — it’s expensive. If you had Medicare Advantage, it would not be covered — and it’s a life saving prescription. That says it all.”

Republican City Council Minority Leader Joseph Borelli said during an interview after the meeting that there was a “consensus throughout the Council” that the change to the Administrative Code “might not be the right way to address an existing problem with financing” the Health Stabilization Fund.

“This was a law that in 2001 to help labor and you go back and look at the quotes, which I have, and you will see some pretty over the top praiseworthy quotes from DC 37 and the UFT how important it was to keep this very statute in effect,” Borelli said. “We won’t consider a change to it that does not guarantee to retirees that they will have access to free, or nearly free healthcare.”  

In an interview after the meeting with Politico, De La Rosa, who had introduced the bill to change the Administrative Code, didn’t offer support for the measure.

“I see this as something that is part of a legislative process,” De La Rosa said. “It ultimately, we get to the point where there is full dissatisfaction, then as a Council we have to come back together and figure out where people are.”

De la Rosa’s Civil Service and Labor Committee will hold a public hearing Monday Jan. 9 on the bill.