|
MORE NEWS ABOUT MANDATORY MEDICARE |
|
|
|
|
2007 JULY - Added Safeguards Under Coalition Bargaining - While there is a trend among cities and towns toward adopting mandatory Medicare, not all communities fit the same pattern when it comes to this issue. “We expect to see a marked increase in the number of communities accepting the local option law (Section 18, Chapter 32B) which mandates that local retirees, who are eligible for Medicare, enroll in that program,” according to Insurance Coordinator Cheryl Stillman.
<*>A recent survey by the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) showed
that approximately 33% of the cities and towns, responding to the
survey, had adopted Section 18. “As town meetings conclude this spring,
that percentage will probably go up,” continued Stillman. “But, there
are exceptions to this pattern.”<* />
What the MAPC survey also showed is that some communities require their
Medicare-eligible retirees to enroll even though they have not adopted
Section 18. “That was basically the situation here in Lexington,”
reports Arthur Washburn, who sits on the public employee committee
(PEC) as the Association’s coalition bargaining designee.<* />
“Let’s just call it friendly persuasion,” states Washburn. “But,
there’s little doubt that retirees, including myself, were led to
believe that we had to sign up for Medicare once we became eligible.”<* />
Lexington officials considered adopting Section 18, but acceptance must
be handled differently there. It’s a somewhat unique approach, with
added safeguards for retirees, and here’s why.<* />
“Lexington is one of the communities that adopted the coalition
bargaining law (Section 19, Chapter 32B), and mandatory Medicare can
only be implemented through Section 19, not Section 18,” continues
Washburn. “Any changes in our insurance plans must be spelled out in
the agreement between the town and the PEC, and that includes mandatory
Medicare.”<* />
Grandfathering Current Retirees<* />
“Naturally the greatest amount of opposition to mandatory Medicare
comes from retirees who would immediately be forced to enroll in
Medicare if Section 18 is adopted. It’s understandable that they are
comfortable with their coverage under a non-Medicare plan and now feel
like the proverbial rug is being pulled out from beneath their feet,”
comments Stillman.<* />
“We’ve seen communities grappling with ways to exclude current retirees
from Section 18 and apply the law just prospectively. In fact, some
postponed action to try and work something out in this regard.”<* />
There is legislation, that would address this issue, pending in the
Joint Public Service Committee. Introduced at the behest of City of
Boston officials, H2728 would amend Section 18 by inserting an
alternative grandfather provision into the existing law. <* />
Instead of all Medicare eligible retirees being forced into the
program, a community could decide to mandate Medicare only for those
who retiree after Section 18 is accepted. The bill would also not force
a retiree to enroll in Medicare if their spouse cannot enroll with them.<* />
Under the proposed legislation, those, who retired before the law’s
acceptance, could decide to remain with their non-Medicare insurance
plan. The choice would be theirs to make.<* />
In connection with mandatory Medicare, our Association has also
introduced legislation (S1604, S1607) that would require
municipalities, accepting Section 18 in the future, to also reimburse
for the Medicare Part B premium. S1604 and S1607 would also require
that retirees, who have been forced into Medicare by the state’s Group
Insurance Commission, also be reimbursed the cost of their Part B
premium (currently, $93.50 monthly per enrollee).<* />
“Again, we must emphasize that the Association bills on Section 18 have
not been enacted into law,” cautions Stillman. “Along with H2728, they
are scheduled to be heard by the Public Service Committee in July.”
|
Healthcare 
