Notes on Ruling on Medicare Advantage

The switch was going to happen September 1. Now it is on hold. As of today, no NYC retirees are being switched from Medicare (Senior Care) to Medicare Advantage.

Judge Frank came down on the side of the retirees, and against the City/Office of Labor Relations. The decision is at the bottom of this post.

“Waive City Benefits” – on hold (nothing for you to do)

Retirees who filed to “waive city benefits” – those forms are not being processed – nothing extra for you to do at this time.

New Medigap Plan? You’ll need to call

Retirees who arranged for a medigap plan to start on September 1 – you do have work to do. I don’t know how to do this, but Marianne wrote: “If you already signed up for a new medigap plan to begin September 1, you need to call the company to find out how to withdraw your application or pause it.” In a better world you would be able to call the union for help – you waived city benefits – you did not waive union membership – but today, I don’t know if they will be in a mood to help

Not a Temporary Restraining Order – Better

There’s something that was going around, I’ll post it at the bottom of this section. It points out the decision is a preliminary injunction. The author claims this is much tougher to overturn than a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). You can read, and evaluate for yourself:

The Court issued a preliminary injunction (not a much weaker temporary restraining order) preventing the City from  moving its retirees to an Aetna Medicare Advantage plan (with the only option being to waive all City health benefits). He ruled that the plaintiffs — the retirees — had a strong case that they were promised cost-free coverage under Medicare, and that reneging on that promise would be likely to cause “irreparable harm”. The injunction can be lifted, but only if the City can show there will not be irreparable harm. (That won’t be easy, since there are many retirees across the country who are currently in treatment with physicians who do not take any Medicare Advantage plan.)”

Favorable Language in the Ruling

The judge seems to agree with the plaintiffs (retirees) and disagree with the City (and the MLC, Aetna, and the UFT) on every single point.

NYC/MLC/Aetna/UFT?

It does seem like our union leaders and the insurance company and City officials are in VERYCLOSECOLLABORATION. Just before the decision, Aetna and the MLC tried to get themselves added to the case. And while I wrote “MLC” since the UFT and DC37 combined control over half the votes, I am writing “MLC” but meaning “MLC with UFT leading the charge, or at least concurring.” Oh, the judge refused to add MLC/Aetna to the case.

Next?

Since this is a preliminary injunction, the UFT leadership will not have an easy time finding a path to overturn it. But they will try something. They want the extra cash into the stabilization fund, and will fight hard for it, and will not quit.

An interesting, while unrelated, note

Mulgrew and his associates are behind closed doors, probably brainstorming ways to overturn this decision. They also have managed not to release results of the contract ratification vote. Maybe the vote count is slow or is having some technical issues. (I’d go there as my first guess). Maybe there is really a problem with the results, and they are brainstorming a press release on that, as well.

The ruling: