| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
 Posted - 03/10/2010 : 7:05:22 PM
|
Looks like the first steps into changes have begun.
Redesign Municipal Health Plans
Updated On: Mar 10, 2010 (11:00:00)
For Immediate Release
Monday, March 9, 2010
Press Office, 617-635-4461
Mayors and Local Leaders form the
Save Our Communities Coalition
New Coalition Advocates for Authority to Redesign Municipal Health Plans
More than twenty Massachusetts municipal leaders announced today the formation of a new coalition, Save Our Communities Coalition, which will work to advance healthcare plan design legislation. The group gathered at the invitation of Boston Mayor Thomas Menino last week to discuss how cities and towns can control rising employee health care costs without the authority to modify health plan design, as it stands under the current state law. With growing healthcare costs taking a large percentage of already tight budgets, municipal officials are working together to advocate for a more efficient use of taxpayer money.
“This is an issue that affects every city and town in the state. We can no longer ignore rising health care costs. It will undermine our ability to provide services to the citizens of our communities,” said Coalition co-chair Mayor Scott W. Lang. “We must confront this issue and make difficult decisions to ensure that we have a municipal finance structure that is sustainable not just through one budget cycle, but for the future.”
“I am pleased to join with other municipal leaders to push for health insurance plan parity,” said co-chair and Revere Mayor Thomas Ambrosino. “We all agree that the status-quo isn’t working, and is an unsustainable model of municipal finance which is unfair to our taxpayers. We can also all agree that we must work with the Legislature, the Governor, and every stakeholder to resolve this issue.”
The cost of providing healthcare for municipal employees has more than doubled in the last decade, far outpacing the inflation and growth of any other municipal expenditure, and costs continue to grow at an unsustainable rate. Currently, cities and towns in Massachusetts spend about two billion dollars each year on health insurance, which represents an average of 14% of municipal budgets.
Proposed legislation would remove the statutory requirement that municipal officials must collectively bargain plan design changes, giving municipalities the authority to make updates to co-payments and deductibles and bring down total premium costs. This would lessen the burden of health care costs on city budgets and make funds available for other taxpayer services such as public safety, schools, and community centers.
The Coalition has requested to meet with Governor Patrick, Senate President Murray, and Speaker DeLeo to discuss the proposed legislation. Mayors and municipal leaders across the state have also reached out to state labor groups and continue to meet with local labor unions and municipal workers to discuss the issue.
Founding Members of the Coalition include:
Thomas G. Ambrosino, Co-Chair, Mayor of Revere
Scott W. Lang, Co-Chair, Mayor of New Bedford
Jay Ash, City Manager of Chelsea
Joseph A. Curtatone, Mayor of Somerville
Carlo DeMaria, Jr., Mayor of Everett
Robert J. Dolan, Mayor of Melrose
Kimberley Driscoll, Mayor of Salem
Mark P. Hawke, Mayor of Gardner
Clare Higgins, Mayor of Northampton
Richard C. Howard, Mayor of Malden
Richard Kelliher, Town Administrator of Brookline
Thatcher W. Kezer III, Mayor of Amesbury
Bernard F. Lynch, City Manager of Lowell
Thomas M. Menino, Mayor of Boston
Joshua Ostroff, Natick Board of Selectman
William F. Scanlon, Jr., Mayor of Beverly
Joseph C. Sullivan, Mayor of Braintree
Lisa A. Wong, Mayor of Fitchburg
You must be logged in to see this link.
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 03/10/2010 : 10:38:53 PM
|
| I heard Mayor Curtatone being interviewed about this on WBZ radio on Monday morning and had been looking for something that I could post on the site about it. So, thanks Tails. |
 |
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2010 : 3:26:13 PM
|
I understand that something needs to be done………. but wont the new health bill that went into affect today help at all with insurance company costs to municipalities? If not, then maybe it is something that should go on the Ballot, but I do agree that municipalities will win that case.
I still think it’s asking for trouble when you cut the unions out of decision-making, although… I can’t totally defend the unions either. Both sides have to give in a little and work out an agreement that is best for all to include the taxpayer.
You must be logged in to see this link.
By John Laidler, Globe Correspondent | March 18, 2010
Area mayors and city managers are participating in a renewed push to provide cities and towns greater ability to contain their spiraling health care costs.
A coalition of 18 municipal leaders, including officials from 10 area communities, was formed recently to take on the issue, with Revere Mayor Thomas G. Ambrosino serving as a cochairman.
The group’s goal is to secure the passage of legislation that would allow municipalities to set copayments and other features of employee health insurance plans without collective bargaining, according to Ambrosino. Any locally designed benefits would have to at least match those of the state’s plan, he said.
“Basically, what we want is the same authority that the state has,’’ Ambrosino said, referring to the power of the state’s Group Insurance Commission to set the terms of its employee health plan without union bargaining.
Other local members of the coalition include Mayors Joseph A. Curtatone of Somerville, Carlo DeMaria Jr. of Everett, Robert J. Dolan of Melrose, Kimberley L. Driscoll of Salem, Richard C. Howard of Malden, Thatcher W. Kezer III of Amesbury, and William F. Scanlon Jr. of Beverly; and two city managers, Jay Ash of Chelsea and Bernard F. Lynch of Lowell.
Another local chief executive, Peabody’s Mayor Michael J. Bonfanti, also said he plans to support the efforts of the coalition.
The group last week sent a letter to Governor Deval Patrick and legislative leaders seeking a meeting on the health cost issue and the proposed legislation. It also invited labor leaders to meet with the coalition on the subject.
The group has said it might seek to place a referendum on the 2012 state ballot to accomplish its goal, but local officials call that a last resort.
“Our preference would be to engage with the Legislature and the unions, and reach some sort of end result that everyone could live with,’’ Ambrosino said.
Dolan agreed that “we would prefer not to have to go on the ballot.’’ He added, however, “If it gets on the ballot, I think we would win overwhelmingly.
“If you went to the main street of any city and asked 100 people if they feel the mayor should be able to adjust copays to no worse than what the state provides — to save jobs, in order to save services —
I’d be shocked if 10 people would disagree.’’
The coalition’s formation marks the latest effort by local officials to address escalating health costs, a problem they say is at the heart of the fiscal crisis buffeting municipalities.
“The whole issue is about cost control, lowering our cost of doing business,’’ Kezer said.
According to the coalition, the cost to municipalities of providing health coverage for employees has more than doubled in the past decade. A recent Globe report found that municipal health plans provide benefit levels that exceed those in the private sector.
“All mayors and town managers are looking for is the same basic authority the state has to make changes,’’ Bonfanti said.
While the coalition is focused on the health plan design legislation, some members said they would be open to other alternatives to scale back costs.
“There are numerous ways to address the issue,’’ Ash said, noting that unions could agree to allow cities and towns to join the Group Insurance Commission without collective bargaining, a shift that he said he could support. But, Ash said, either way the costs have to be lowered.
“Our backs are against the wall and we have no place else to go,’’ Chelsea’s city manager said. “Either we decimate services by laying off people we can ill afford to lay off, or we find relief to the health insurance problem.’’
Several other municipal officials said they might also accept entering the state’s insurance program as an alternative to setting up municipal coverage plans individually.
Ambrosino said, however, “I don’t think the GIC works for enough communities for that to be palatable for a large majority of communities . . . Plan design is something that works for everyone.’’
The proposed legislation faces resistance on Beacon Hill, however, with some officials citing concerns about undoing longstanding union bargaining rights.
Jeff Crosby, president of the North Shore Labor Council, said his group, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO union, opposes the legislation.
“If we are going to fix health care costs, you have to go after the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the hospitals,’’ he said. “What apparently the mayors seem to want to do is to shift costs onto employees without employees having a voice in how that’s done. That won’t solve the problem. It leaves people who are profiting from the current system untouched.’’
Crosby added, however, “I have a lot of respect for the mayors. They are trying to do difficult jobs. I appreciate their efforts to reach out to the AFL-CIO,’’ he said, and expressed confidence that the labor organization will have discussions with them.
Local officials emphasize that their efforts are not antiunion.
“I think this is a case of all of us being on the same side and trying to figure out a way to get this thing on a more balanced basis,’’ said Scanlon, Beverly’s mayor.
Said Ambrosino, “This really is all about jobs. We say this is a union issue, because doing nothing means the loss of a significant number of union jobs.’’
Malden’s Howard said he sees the legislation for local plan designs as a first step to preserving those jobs. He said municipalities could then build on those savings by negotiating with unions to provide incentives for employees to stay healthy, measures that “can begin to keep the lid on costs and hopefully start driving them the other way.’’
|
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2010 : 08:08:15 AM
|
SAUGUS
The Boston Globe
Dropping town’s health coverage may pay for Saugus workers
By John Laidler
Globe Correspondent / March 25, 2010
Saugus is trying an innovative tactic to control its municipal health care costs.
The town recently offered to pay employees who drop out of the town’s health insurance plan and join their spouse’s or some other plan.
Under the Health Insurance Opt-Out Program, which was outlined in a March 15 memo, employees who withdraw from the town-sponsored plan will receive a lump-sum payment of $3,000 per year if they are on a family plan and $1,200 a year if they are on an individual plan, according to Town Manager Andrew Bisignani.
“Money is very tight and our nondiscretionary expenses are increasing at a faster rate than our revenues,’’ he said. “We have to be innovative and find ways we can reduce expenses as well as increase revenues. This is just a way we feel is innovative and may hold a lot of promise to save money.’’
The incentive payments, which are subject to state and federal taxes, will be issued at the end of each benefit year, which runs from July 1 through June 30. Employees who want to join or continue in the program must notify the town during its annual enrollment period, which this year runs from April 12 to May 10. They also can rejoin the town’s plan during that time.
Fran Trainor, the town’s supervisor of administrative services, said she is aware of at least one other community — Brookline — that has implemented a similar plan. She said a number of other communities are considering the idea, several of which have contacted Saugus for information.
Cities and towns have been pressing the state for a solution to their rising health care costs, and in particular to allow them to design their health plans without collective bargaining.
Saugus already has succeeded in trimming costs by joining the state’s employee health system, which is run by the Group Insurance Commission. According to Bisignani, the town is saving roughly $1.5 million per year through its enrollment in the GIC, which took effect in January 2008. Saugus was the first municipality to take advantage of a 2007 law that allowed cities and towns to join the state’s larger plan.
But even with those savings, Bisignani said, the town would still benefit from further reductions. The town faces an 11 percent increase in its health budget next year, primarily to pay insurance premiums. While smaller than the 15 to 18 percent increases of the past, that will still mean additional dollars to absorb in the budget at a time the town is also facing higher costs in other areas and a potential local aid cut, Bisignani said.
The incentive idea is “another tool in the box. . . . We said, ‘Let’s try this,’ ’’ said Bisignani, who credited Trainor and Jennifer Smith, the town’s personnel administrator, with working out the details of the offer.Continued...
Saugus has about 452 active employees who receive health coverage through the town, and approximately 116 who do not. Retirees are not being offered the incentive.
Officials say the program makes sense because the annual cost to the town for premiums in fiscal 2011 for the most popular health plan will be $14,400 for a family and $6,300 for an individual. Saugus would save $11,400 next year for every subscriber who drops the family plan and $5,100 for every subscriber who opts out of the individual plan.
“If five people sign up for it, it would be worthwhile, but we are hoping to get a lot more than five,’’ Bisignani said, noting that the plan drew a favorable response from union representatives, who were briefed by the town at a March 11 meeting.
“In these times, raises are few and far between,’’ he said. “Here’s an opportunity to pick up $3,000 a year from a family plan, assuming you have an alternative means of insurance.’’
“I think it’s a great idea,’’ said Bill Cross, president of the town’s firefighters union. “It’s a great opportunity for the town and the employees. If they can get on their spouse’s plan, it saves the town money and the employees get a stipend for it.’’
Cross said his preference would be for the program to be subject to collective bargaining. “I’d like to have a guarantee that if we have a benefit like this, that it is going to be maintained,’’ he said.
But Bisignani said the town’s attorney has advised him that the program does not need to be submitted to union bargaining because “we are not changing the terms of any plan.’’
Initial reaction to the program from his members has been positive, Cross said.
“They love it,’’ he said, noting that he has heard three or four of his members say they plan to take advantage of the incentive.
To be eligible, employees must have been enrolled for a minimum of 24 months in a GIC plan through the town, and must provide written proof that they have other coverage to take the place of their town benefit.
You must be logged in to see this link.
|
|
|
|
Paul
Senior Member
158 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2010 : 8:41:07 PM
|
| This is nothing new,it has been going on for a long time in the private sector.Companies have fought this by charging extra money to employees who have spouses that are eligible to take insurance on their own plan but decline it and take the spouse's insurance.Where I work the charge(penalty)is about $75 a week. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 07:09:32 AM
|
The Boston Globe
Health tax may wallop towns
Levies to be steep if high-end plans aren’t scaled back
By Sean P. Murphy
You must be logged in to see this link.
Massachusetts municipalities that offer employees, retirees, and elected officials the most generous and costly health insurance plans will feel the squeeze of the new national health care law’s tax on “Cadillac’’ insurance plans.
A family health plan that costs more than $27,500 would be subject to a 40 percent tax on every dollar spent above that threshold. The tax, set to take effect in 2018, would be levied on insurers, who would probably pass it on to municipalities and other employers. A few cities and towns already have family plans that exceed $27,500, and many others are on track to surpass that level before the tax kicks in.
That means taxpayers in many communities could be facing thousands of dollars in additional costs for every employee, retired worker, and elected leader they cover, unless those communities move soon to scale back coverage, a change the law is designed to encourage.
“This could be extremely expensive,’’ said Geoffrey C. Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, a lobbying group for cities and towns that has pushed for an overhaul of the municipal health care system. “In general, municipalities would fall into this tax because health care is very expensive in Massachusetts and the municipal plans are very generous.’’
Framingham has dozens of employees enrolled in two of its family plans at annual premiums of $40,475 or $39,150, far in excess of the threshold. For individual plans, the excise tax threshold is $10,200, and Framingham has scores of employees enrolled in plans with annual premiums of $16,275 or $14,500.
If the new tax were in effect today, Framingham would probably face an additional expense of $4,660 to $5,190 for every employee in the family plans, and $1,720 to $2,430 for each employee on an individual plan.
Waltham would also be liable for the excise tax because it offers a family plan with an annual premium of $30,415, almost $3,000 over the threshold.
And Lawrence, one of the poorest cities in the state, also exceeds the tax threshold by providing a family plan that costs $30,180, though the city may join the state’s Group Insurance Commission as part of its financial restructuring.
Many other cities are already close to the family plan threshold and on pace to exceed it by 2018 because of increases in health care costs, including Everett ($27,048 in annual premiums), Brockton ($25,776), Malden ($24,360), Newton ($23,844), Revere ($23,604), and Peabody ($23,466).
Under the federal bill, however, the thresholds set for 2018 could increase if medical inflation outpaces expectations.
The state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy estimates that 8,600 state residents would be subject to the tax, based on a recent survey of employers.
“The theory behind the tax is that you are taxing excessive benefits, benefits that go beyond what a typical plan offers,’’ said Robert W. Seifert, a health overhaul specialist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School’s Center for Health Law and Economics.
The tax would apply to health insurers, such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. But the insurers would probably pass the additional cost to employers, including municipalities, Seifert said.
Asked about the tax, Blue Cross-Blue Shield, which provides insurance to many cities and towns, released a statement saying, “Before the tax is implemented in 2018, we will continue to find ways to ensure our continued commitment to offer high-quality health plans at cost-effective prices.’’
Health care plans offered by cities and towns typically have very low copayments and deductibles but very high premiums. Municipalities pay as much as 85 percent of those premiums.
The country’s major unions, including those representing public employees, fought hard to block or weaken the so-called Cadillac tax, saying it would penalize workers who gave up higher wages for richer benefits.
“It was the main issue our national union was concerned about,’’ said Brad Tenney, secretary treasurer of the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts. “The concern was that some of our plans that are high value would be hit by this.’’
Tenney said union pressure on Congress produced an exception for law enforcement personnel, including firefighters, because of their dangerous duties. For them, the threshold for family plans to trigger the tax would be $30,950, and the individual threshold $11,850.
Ginger Esty, chairwoman of the Framingham Board of Selectmen, said firefighters and others must be willing to accept less generous health coverage for the town to avoid significant layoffs.
“The cost of health care already is extremely expensive,’’ she said. “And if we don’t get any relief from the unions, there’s only one thing we can do, and that is lay off workers.’’
But Pete DeVito, president of the 140-member Framingham Firefighters union, said although he is open to talking with town officials, he would continue to be protective of benefits.
“Everything we got, we got at the bargaining table,’’ DeVito said. “We don’t like this Cadillac tax because it would hit us. But we have confidence our national representatives will fight it off’’ by 2018.
On the local level, firefighters and other unionized workers in Framingham have already increased the share of the premium they pay from 10 percent to 13 percent, DeVito said.
Under state law, cities and towns cannot change the mechanics of the health care plans they offer — the amount employees pay in premiums and in copayments, for example — without union approval. |
|
|
|
massdee
Moderator
5299 Posts |
Posted - 04/05/2010 : 6:20:32 PM
|
Globe Editorial
The Boston Globe
Baker deserves support on plan to help cities cut health costs
April 3, 2010
REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL hopeful Charlie Baker should get credit for proposing that cities and towns be given the power to make relatively minor changes in union-negotiated health plans in order to save millions of dollars for taxpayers. The burden on workers is fairly small, while the benefit to local finances is great. Baker’s likely rivals, Governor Deval Patrick and Treasurer Tim Cahill, have insisted that unions should retain the right to veto such a move. Baker’s plan provides the greater good.
Discuss
COMMENTS (42)
State law now lets municipalities join the Group Insurance Commission, the agency that provides health insurance plans for state workers, but fewer than 20 of 351 communities have done so. That’s the case even though the GIC has a proven record of keeping its premium increases significantly below those of local health plans. One big reason is that many unions have been unwilling to go along. Not without savings-negating concessions, anyway.
In the face of that reality, Baker and running-mate Richard Tisei have proposed two changes. First, they would grant local governments the ability to join the GIC without union approval. But because that wouldn’t work for every city or town, the Republican duo would also give local officials the same authority the state has to set, rather than bargain, plan features like co-payments and deductibles, with the proviso that their plans be consistent with GIC offerings.
The GIC offers plans that are usually better and less costly to those covered than the plans private workers have, so municipal employees would still be getting a good deal. Many cities and towns, however, would accrue the cost benefits that come from joining a large pool of insured workers, with the clout to negotiate lower rates. The Republican team says their proposal would save about $100 million a year, an estimate Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, calls “very reasonable.’’
If the Legislature declined to adopt those changes, Baker would work to put them on the 2012 ballot as an initiative petition, thereby giving voters an opportunity to decide the issue.
This proposal clearly won’t endear Baker to organized labor. But it’s just as clear that the current approach hasn’t worked. Nor is there much reason to think that merely tweaking the union veto — Patrick’s preferred approach — would yield much better results.
With the cost of health plans eating up larger and larger shares of municipal budgets, local officials need the ability to pare those expenses if they are to avoid more layoffs or service cuts. Baker’s proposal is an idea whose time has come.
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Municipal Health Care
