Thursday, February 23, 2023


Another MLC memo finds its way to us. It is not good news. 

Privatized Medicare Advantage for retirees is coming, subject to MLC approval.


Quinn Zannoni said...

Doesn't mention the elimination of Senior Care as an option.

Bennett Fischer said...

It does make one wonder: What happens after the Aetna deal is consummated? What would the MLC's next step be? (And do these people ever learn from their mistakes?)

Would the MLC ignore the court's rulings and hit the repeat button? Would they once again try to force retirees onto a Med Advantage plan with penalties for opting-out? They already tried that and it didn't work. Wouldn't that fit the definition of insanity?

Would they go all-in with the City to terminate GHI Senior Care? That is what the MLC is supposedly trying to protect us from, isn't it? Five Unity myrmidons testified at the Big City Council Hearing last month, that without the privilege of being allowed to pay for Senior Care, Mulgrewcare would kill them!

Would the MLC sit on their hands and let Adams unilaterally terminate all plans except Aetna? Would they do nothing to fight it (just like they did nothing to fight Emblem Health from charging illegal Senior Care copays)? Would they just sit on their hands and watch grassroots retiree organizations take the lead (once again) in protecting retired UFT members - and win, again - in court? That wouldn't be a very good look.

caprice240k said...

It's no coincidence that the City and MLC are proposing an MA contract with Aetna right after the City agreed to a new pattern-setting contact with DC 37. It sounds like a quid pro quo to me.

caprice240k said...

Maybe the MLC and City will try to ignore the Appellate Division ruling because they are confident that they will eventually prevail in the Court of Appeals.

Quinn Zannoni said...

Ostensibly, the UFT is against the plan to force retirees onto MA without a Senior Care option (pay-up or otherwise). This is the meaning of their rhetoric when they say that the arbitrator has "taken away our collective bargaining rights" by making a unilateral decision regarding reducing the choice of insurance plans.

Until the City pursues the nuclear option to eliminate Senior Care, we won't know where the UFT and MLC stand. If the MLC agrees to eliminate Senior Care, well that's a far greater scandal than their support for forcing retirees to pay up. It's possible they could push back and sue the City at that point. They have to walk a fine line between making good on financial promises and saving face with members. Sitting on their hands seems most in the spirit of Unity -- they will just complain that the City is acting illegally and pretend that their legal department has its hands tied.

Andrew Grant said...

Let’s say the worst case scenario occurs - no choice other than MAP. If they impose MAP, we would opt out entirely and get our own supplement plan. That would make us ineligible for for basic and IRMAA reimbursement. So be it. The HBP change form allows for declining NYC health coverage. I am concerned that we will have ample time to have such a request acted on to keep original Medicare and sign up for a private plan like AARP. I’m interested to know how many retirees would also do that.

We live in Maine and would have no coverage under NYC MAP. My wife spent her career in healthcare and knows MAP from the provider side - bad news. She fought with them for 30 years over arbitrary denials.