Skip to content

MassRetirees.com

Increase font size  Decrease font size  Default font size 
You are here:   Home arrow Healthcare arrow Push For Part B Premium Refund
Push For Part B Premium Refund PDF Print E-mail
SEPTEMBER 2005 - Federal Subsidy Key To Efforts - When retirees insured through the GIC lost their Medicare Part B refund to budget cuts in 2002, what stung the most was knowing that the GIC, and by extension the state, was saving millions while they were forced to pay for Medicare Part B. Currently, a retiree enrolled in Medicare Part B pays $938.40 ($1,876.80 per couple) a year to the federal government.

After fighting to restore the benefit for the past three years, Association officials believe they may have found a solution by way of a new federal subsidy that will begin in 2006. As was explained in the July issue of the Voice, a new federal program, created under the Medicare D (prescription drug) law, will provide a subsidy to employers, such as the state, that provide a comprehensive drug benefit to retirees.

Under the subsidy, the Commonwealth is expected to receive $25-$30 million per year. In light of this new revenue stream, Association lobbyists successfully amended the Senate's version of the FY'06 state budget with language requiring the GIC to reinstate the Medicare Part B reimbursement next year by utilizing the federal Medicare subsidy.

GIC Blocks Amendment

The amendment, which was filed by Senator Marian Walsh (D-West Roxbury) along with several other Senators from both parties, received the support of Senate Ways and Means Chairman Therese Murray (D-Plymouth). Unfortunately, the provision was not included in the final version of the budget, known as the Conference Committee report, that was sent to the governor in late June.

Reports from legislative leaders, along with information from the GIC obtained by the Association, suggest that GIC officials may have played a major role in blocking the amendment's passage. Sources indicate that the GIC, along with the Romney Administration, expressed enough doubt that the federal subsidy may not materialize, that concern grew within the ranks of the legislative leadership.

"Our amendment was very straightforward and clear. No state funds were being used and the Part B reimbursement would be contingent upon the state receiving the federal subsidy," said White.

"For the GIC to have muddied the waters by creating unnecessary skepticism was uncalled for. We are always willing to work with people to make a bill or proposal stronger. But it seems that the intention all along was to derail our amendment. With the hundreds of millions being saved, the lack of support from the GIC is unacceptable."

 
< Prev   Next >