We heard Friday Aug. 11 that the judge made his temp ruling permanent. Here are the news coverages. I will add more as they come in.
https://www.thecity.nyc/health/2023/8/11/23828912/medicare-advantage-switch-ban-retirees-adams?fbclid=IwAR2MXOPl66BCwzXGuOCbui-oCaFRvQZYv3Aaug5MtXm6cZsE26DTSFjksSw_aem_AVxyUrqCM-n2xFe3re6xhuvG1hoqyRh6KOF5GOfiyvnzy-YhGfjp2l0HhvN64B8GwV8&mibextid=Zxz2cZ
Judge ‘Permanently’ Bans Medicare Advantage Switch for City Retirees
The Adams administration had intended to switch 250,000 retired public-sector workers to a controversial privately run health care plan on Sept. 1.
A Manhattan Supreme Court judge issued a ruling Friday “permanently” prohibiting New York City from switching its 250,000 retired employees and their elderly or disabled dependents to a privatized Medicare Advantage plan managed by Aetna.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank sided with city retirees, finding merit to their argument that the planned switchover violated longstanding guarantees by the city that every active and retired city worker is entitled to city-funded healthcare through a combination of Medicare and other supplemental insurance.
In his decision, Frank ordered the city “permanently enjoined from requiring any City retirees, and their dependents from being removed from their current health insurance plan(s), and from being required to either enroll in an Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan or seek their own health coverage.”
Frank granted the retirees’ petition to stop the switch for the reasons he outlined in a July 6 ruling granting a preliminary injunction. In that decision, Frank wrote that the retirees “have shown that numerous promises were made by the City to then-New York City employees and future retirees that they would receive a Medicare supplemental plan when they retired, and that their first level of coverage once [they] retired would [be] Medicare.”
The administration of Mayor Eric Adams moved to switch retirees as of September 1, adhering to pacts with unions made under former Mayor Bill de Blasio that aimed to save the city $600 million annually.
The Adams administration inked the Aetna deal with the support of the Municipal Labor Committee, a consortium of 102 public sector unions. The MLC voted to approve the Aetna contract in March.
“We are extremely disappointed in this ruling and intend to appeal” Frank’s decision, said mayoral spokesperson Jonah Allon.
“This Medicare Advantage plan, which was negotiated closely with and supported by the Municipal Labor Committee, would improve upon retirees’ current plans, including offering a lower deductible, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, and new benefits, like transportation, fitness programs, and wellness incentives,” Allon said. “This decision only creates confusion and uncertainty among our retirees.”
The head of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, a lead plaintiff in the case, said she hopes the retirees’ victory will inspire other retirees nationwide to act to prevent their employers and unions “from privatizing the Federal Public Health Benefit of Medicare.”
“This is now the third time in the last two years that courts have had to step in and stop the City from violating retirees’ healthcare rights,” Marianne Pizzitola, the groups’ president, said in a statement Friday afternoon. “We once again call on the City and the Municipal Labor Committee to end their ruthless and unlawful campaign to deprive retired municipal workers of the healthcare benefits they earned.”
It’s not the first time the courts have sided with retired city workers on the issue: Retirees successfully sued last year to block a previous version of the plan. In that case, a judge barred the city’s alternative offer, which would have been allowed retirees to keep their existing Medicare with Medigap health plans — if they paid $191 a month.
The Aetna deal that’s now enjoined was key to locking in an estimated $600 million in annual savings that municipal unions agreed to, in order to help cover the cost of wage boosts and benefits.
Many retirees have argued that the long-planned switch from traditional Medicare to the privately run Medicare Advantage would increase their health care costs and make it more difficult to get approvals for procedures.
As Frank noted in his prior decision, an attorney representing Aetna acknowledged in court that some people might not be able to keep their doctors under the plan.
A prominent labor historian said the retirees’ victory signals the “beginnings of an effort to create a nationwide movement” to enable retirees to retain their traditional Medicare.
“I think the New York example shows that if retirees who know how to organize — and after all these people who had experience in the union movement, people who are used to acting together — if they band together and dig in their heels, they can really tie up the city and other government entities into knots,” said Joshua Freeman, professor emeritus at Queens College and a member of the CUNY Professional Staff Congress retiree council.
“They’re pushing back and they have been remarkable in what they’ve achieved in New York City so far — it’s not over, but it’s pretty incredible what’s happened.”
====
The Court Amended the Order for a typo. Because we believe in accuracy in reporting we are sharing the correction. AND… an updated statement in response to the Mayor’s Office! There is always A LOT to say!
Mayor’s Office: “We are extremely disappointed in this ruling, and intend to appeal. This Medicare Advantage plan, which was negotiated closely with and supported by the Municipal Labor Committee, would improve upon retirees’ current plans, including offering a lower deductible, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, and new benefits, like transportation, fitness programs, and wellness incentives. In addition, it would save $600 million annually, especially critical at a time when we are already facing significant fiscal and economic challenges. This decision only creates confusion and uncertainty among our retirees.”
Marianne Pizzitola states, “The only one confused or uncertain is the Mayor if he cannot see that the Aetna Dis-Advantage plan is:
· NOT Medicare
· NOT a savings
· NOT an improvement to our current plan as even Congress knows that!
· Trades access to health care and our lives for cheap “perks” like SilverSneakers or processed meals we do not need nor want
· A danger due to prior authorizations, wrongful delays and denials of care and drains the Federal Medicare Trust with ‘upcoding’
· A diminished health plan that will harm retirees
· Will NOT save $600 million annually
The Court repeatedly found the City is on the wrong side of history, breaking several laws to implement this scheme which would harm the very people who built this City. If the Mayor wants to save the City money, he should live up to the promise made to us as we lived up to ours, and he should stop spending taxpayer dollars to harm senior citizens and the disabled. The City and the Municipal Labor Committee sought to sell off Retiree Healthcare to enrich a fund they misused. Their savings agreement has been found illegal and they should drop this idea and go back to the drawing board. Call a mulligan already and come up with better solutions like we suggested and leave retirees alone.”
State Supreme Court Rules Against New York City’s Plan to
Strip City Retirees of Promised Medicare Benefits
\
Court Had Issued Preliminary Injunction in July; Today’s Ruling Permanently Bans City From Implementing Inferior Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan
NEW YORK, August 11, 2023 — Today, the New York County Supreme Court issued a final ruling permanently stopping the City from forcing a quarter-million elderly and disabled retirees off of their longstanding Medicare insurance and onto an inferior type of insurance called “Medicare Advantage.” Unlike Medicare—a public program that has protected City retirees for the past 57 years—the City’s new Aetna Medicare Advantage plan is a private, for-profit endeavor that would limit retirees’ access to their medical providers, prevent retirees from receiving care prescribed by their doctors unless Aetna deemed it “medically necessary,” and expose retirees to increased healthcare costs.
The Court had issued a preliminary injunction last month, with Supreme Court Justice Lyle E. Frank noting that the retirees “have shown by clear and convincing evidence” that implementation of the new Aetna Medicare Advantage plan would likely violate their rights in numerous ways. Justice Frank also ruled that “should this plan go forward, irreparable harm would result” to countless retirees.
Today the Court ruled in favor of the retirees on multiple grounds. Among them was the fact that, since the 1960s, the City has guaranteed every active and retired City worker—by statute and through written and verbal promises—that when they became elderly or disabled, they would be entitled to City-funded healthcare through a combination of Medicare plus Medicare “supplemental” insurance, which covers healthcare expenses that Medicare does not.
The decision is available here.
Jake Gardener, a partner at Walden Macht & Haran LLP, counsel to the retirees, says, “We are grateful to Justice Frank for again recognizing the multiple ways in which the health and healthcare rights of retired City workers would be imperiled by the City’s new Medicare Advantage plan. Because of Justice Frank’s well-reasoned decision, hundreds of thousands of senior citizens and disabled first responders will be able to continue receiving the medical care they desperately need and to which they are entitled.”
Marianne Pizzitola,
President of the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees,
one of the lead plaintiffs, states, “This is now the third time in the
last two years that courts have had to step in and stop the City from
violating retirees’ healthcare rights. We once again call on the City
and the Municipal Labor Committee to end their ruthless and unlawful
campaign to deprive retired municipal workers of the healthcare benefits
they earned. Knowing after every win, the City has found a way to go
around the Judge’s decision, the City Council should support Intro 1099
sponsored by Councilman Charles Barron, and stop this administration
from wasting taxpayer dollars appealing righteous decisions by the
Court. NYC Retirees earned their right to Federal Medicare and we relied
on the promise we would have this benefit through our lifetime. We
hope this decision will help retirees nationwide stop their former
unions and employer from privatizing the Federal Public Health Benefit
of Medicare so we can live the rest of our lives in peace.”
Jake Gardener, Attorney:
Marianne Pizzitola, NYC Retiree:
Marianne Pizzitola
President
NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees
And
FDNY EMS Retirees Association
‘Christmas Gift in August’: Retirees Fighting Medicare Privatization Cheer Judge’s Latest Ruling
By Joe Maniscalco
“Yaaaay!”
New York City retiree Roberta Gonzalez reacted with total glee today after learning municipal workers fighting to retain their traditional Medicare health insurance coverage have won yet another big victory in court.
“It feels almost like a Christmas gift in August,” Gonzalez told Work-Bites. “I’m feeling very appreciative.”
“It is hereby ORDERED,” New York State Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank wrote in his Aug. 11 decision, “that the Respondents are permanently enjoined from requiring any City retirees, and their dependents from being removed from their current health insurance plan(s), and from being required to either enroll in an Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan or seek their own health coverage.”
Municipal retirees like Gonzalez who devoted decades of their lives working for the City of New York with the promise of having problem-free health insurance when all was said and done, have spent at least the last two years fighting one administration after the another bent on taking that very same promise away from them.
Hizzoner Eric Adams used to be a staunch opponent of the profit-driven Medicare Advantage scheme, calling it a “bait and switch” on the campaign trail, and railing into then-Mayor Bill de Blasio for trying to push it on seniors.
On Friday, however, City Hall was quick to release a statement following Judge Frank’s ruling, in which the Adams administration announced its plan to appeal the decision, while also touting the supposed benefits of Aetna’s Medicare Advantage plan.
“We are extremely disappointed in this ruling, and intend to appeal,” the statement said. “This Medicare Advantage plan, which was negotiated closely with and supported by the Municipal Labor Committee, would improve upon retirees’ current plans, including offering a lower deductible, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, and new benefits, like transportation, fitness programs, and wellness incentives. In addition, it would save $600 million annually, especially critical at a time when we are already facing significant fiscal and economic challenges.”
City Hall further stated, “This decision only creates confusion and uncertainty among our retirees.”
Municipal retirees organized into groups to fight back against the push for privatization, however, have always been crystal clear about profit-driven Medicare Advantage plans being far inferior to traditional Medicare — even with Aetna’s “SilverSneaker” perks.
“This is now the third time in the last two years that courts have had to step in and stop the City from violating retirees’ healthcare rights,” FDNY EMT retiree and NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees President Marianne Pizzitola said in a statement following Judge Frank’s ruling. “We once again call on the City and the Municipal Labor Committee to end their ruthless and unlawful campaign to deprive retired municipal workers of the healthcare benefits they earned.”
Pizzitola later responded directly to City Hall saying, “The only one confused or uncertain is the Mayor if he cannot see that the Aetna Dis-Advantage plan is not Medicare; not a savings; and not an improvement to our current plan — as even Congress knows that!”
Just a few weeks ago, New York City municipal retirees fighting the ongoing privatization of Medicare were saluted as heroes at “Save Medicare” rally held in the nation’s capital.
The head of the New York City Organization of Public Service Retirees also insists Medicare Advantage, “Trades access to health care and our lives for cheap perks like SilverSneakers or processed meals we do not need nor want” — and is a “danger due to prior authorizations, wrongful delays and denials of care and drains the Federal Medicare Trust with upcoding.”
Other New York City municipal retirees who are presently undergoing treatments at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center tell Work-Bites they fear Aetna’s Medicare Advantage plan would, in deed, force their doctors to start seeking prior authorizations currently not required by traditional Medicare.
Work-Bites reached out to Sloan Kettering for clarification, but was instead referred to Aetna.
Finally, Pizzitola says Aetna’s Medicare Advantage plan is a “a diminished health plan that will harm retirees,” and “will not save $600 million annually.”
Work-Bites previously reported how NYC Comptroller Brad Lander called that $600 million figure into question before ultimately deciding not to officially register the city’s Medicare Advantage contract with Aetna. The mayor later went on to ignore Lander’s refusal and deemed the contract registered anyway.
“The Court repeatedly found the City is on the wrong side of history, breaking several laws to implement this scheme which would harm the very people who built this City,” Pizzitola added. “If the Mayor wants to save the City money, he should live up to the promise made to us as we lived up to ours, and he should stop spending taxpayer dollars to harm senior citizens and the disabled."
Pizzitola further insists, “The City and the Municipal Labor Committee sought to sell off Retiree Healthcare to enrich a fund they misused. Their savings agreement has been found illegal and they should drop this idea and go back to the drawing board. Call a mulligan already and come up with better solutions like we suggested and leave retirees alone.”
Like Gonzalez who suffers from 9/11-related cancer, many of the retirees fighting back against privatization, are the same people who’ve helped the City of New York survive its darkest days — and are now suffering for it.
“I feel very dismissed by the city,” Gonzalez says. “And now I feel very angry at people who I feel are looking at older people like we don't matter, like we don't deserve what was promised to us and what we worked for.”
“Medigap” refers to that portion of retiree healthcare costs left over after traditional Medicare pays the bills. The City of New York has been covering it for nearly 60 years as part of the promise to its municipal workforce. It’s a big reason why generations of people have decided to come and work for NYC in the first place.
Stu Eber, president of the Council of Municipal Retirees Organizations [COMRO], called Judge Frank’s ruling “another important defense of our right to premium free Medigap.”
“Once again, it is clear that we need to have all parties, including retirees, at the table to find appropriate ways to save on healthcare for employees and retirees,” he told Work-Bites. “Waiting for another round of appeals is not helping the MLC [Municipal Labor Committee] receive their $600 million dollars this year. And waiting doesn’t relieve the tax burden on all of us. It’s time to form the blue ribbon panel suggested last year to resolve the issues.”
So far, the Adams administration continues to tune out those calls.
Legislation before the New York City Council could protect traditional Medicare and put an end to the anguish privatization is causing retirees. But as of today, that legislation — Intro. 1099 — still only has 16 sponsors. Speaker Adrienne Adams not being among them.
“Knowing after every win, the City has found a way to go around the Judge’s decision, the City Council should support Intro 1099 sponsored by Councilman Charles Barron, and stop this administration from wasting taxpayer dollars appealing righteous decisions by the Court,” Pizzitola added. “NYC Retirees earned their right to Federal Medicare and we relied on the promise we would have this benefit through our lifetime.”
Gonzalez views the passage of Intro. 1099 as “the most logical step” for members of the New York City Council.
“I can't see why that wouldn't be the most logical next step for them, seeing that the judge seems to think that we are right, and the city is wrong in trying to do what they're doing.”
While local elected officials may have pretended otherwise, the scheme to save New York City a supposed $600 million a year by pushing municipal retirees into a scandal-plagued profit-driven health insurance plan deceptively dubbed “Medicare Advantage” — was always in line with the larger nationwide campaign to privatize traditional Medicare as we know it.
“We hope this decision [by Judge Frank] will help retirees nationwide stop their former unions and employer from privatizing the Federal Public Health Benefit of Medicare so we can live the rest of our lives in peace,” Pizzitola said.
Despite the joy Judge Frank’s decision has brought Gonzalez, she knows the fight against privatization is far from over.
“The issue isn’t over and I’m afraid the city will try to find a way around this resolution, just like they have tried before,” she said. “I think they hope we will run out of steam or money, and go away if they keep using their never-ending taxpayer funds to fight us [because] we are limited-funded older folks on fixed incomes. We need to continue to press City Council to approve [Council Member Charles] Barron’s local law 1099 to codify the law, so the city can’t come back at us through any alternate routes. Additionally, we need to continue to support original Medicare, and fight against the privatization of Medicare — and to get to Medicare for all.”
https://www.work-bites.com/view-all/3n70aj65w5bp2xtvv3rrh235yc0twj
