Not only did GIC officials not defend the reimbursement, which has repaid retirees for their monthly Medicare Part B payments since the mid-1960s, but they damagingly sided with the governor's position of ending the benefit - even before legislative officials took action on the FY04 budget.

At the GIC's April meeting, Executive Director Dolores Mitchell somewhat proudly reported to her 11-member commission that the agency was projecting a $10 million surplus for FY03 ($12 million as of 6/1/03). Mitchell stated, much to the delight of Under Secretary of Administration and Finance Peter Schwarzenbach, that the money would be turned over to the state's General Fund at the end of the current fiscal year.

As Governor Mitt Romney's point-man to the GIC, Schwarzenbach is responsible for the Administration's attempts to control health care costs. The Administration has proposed dramatic increases in insurance contributions, along with a move to coerce retirees into cheaper HMO plans.

"We feel strongly that the GIC has a responsibility to be advocates for the retirees and employees they represent. What we have witnessed is a go-along to get-along relationship with the past several Republican governors," said Association President Ralph White. "For the Commission and its director to offer no defense of the Medicare reimbursement, while crowing about a budget surplus, is inexcusable."

"For nearly 40 years, the GIC has coerced retirees into Medicare coverage with the promise of being reimbursed for the state's share of Medicare Part B. To ignore that history is to ignore the state's responsibility to pay its fair share of the retirees' insurance costs," said White.

Unfortunately, the history and facts surrounding the Medicare refund have been largely ignored by the past two Administrations. As has been previously stated, a long history has been established whereby the GIC has made the annual reimbursement without interruption.

Even during the fiscal crisis that gripped the state in the early 1990s, then Governor Bill Weld did not attempt to renege on the state's commitment to reimburse retirees. To the contrary, Weld strengthened that commitment by ushering in the law requiring Medicare eligible retirees to join the federal insurance program.

This move shifted roughly $100 million a year in retiree insurance costs over to the federal government. The state is only responsible for providing low-cost supplemental insurance, designed to cover prescription drugs and other services not picked up by Medicare.

Since those retirees receiving Social Security benefits were forced to have the premium for Medicare B withheld by the federal government from their Social Security check each month, the state agreed to reimburse the retiree for its share of the cost.

To add to the mix, a letter from the GIC went out to 2,400 retirees on April 28, saying that because of the "Commonwealth's fiscal crisis" the GIC would no longer make a monthly Medicare Part B payment to the Social Security Administration. These retirees were instructed that they would have to make their own payments of $58.70 a month directly to the Social Security Administration beginning in June.

This group of 2,400 retirees had never worked under Social Security, but were eligible for Medicare because their spouse had worked under Social Security, therefore making both eligible for Medicare.

The GIC had been making a direct Part B Medicare payment to the Social Security Administration for the state's share of the Part B cost. The letter alerted the retirees that they would lose their GIC health plan if they failed to make their payments.

It must be pointed out that these and other retirees had been forced into the GIC's Medicare carve-out plans. In other words, the GIC has cost-shifted a huge amount of medical costs over to Medicare - an insurance plan to which the state had not contributed.

Understandably, retirees, who are enrolled in Medicare and are insured through the GIC, are shocked and quite upset at the prospect of losing the state's share of the Part B cost.

The loss of $704 ($1,408 per couple) a year has been a significant hit on the wallets of members living on fixed incomes. With many retirees depending on the reimbursement to pay their property taxes and other living expenses, members have not been shy about expressing their anger.

Retired Department of Correction employee Tony Davino, who lives in Walpole, is angry at the lack of support the governor has shown to retirees. "We've received no support at all from Governor Romney. He's ignored the state's Medicare refund agreement and the GIC has been no help whatsoever...you can include me as one outraged member," says Devino.

James Brizida, who retired in 1984 from the Mass. Highway Dept, is living on a modest state pension and small Social Security benefit. He and his wife are both enrolled in Medicare B and will lose $1,408 a year. After receiving word about the GIC's decision to end the reimbursement, the 77 year Fall River resident said, "That's our money. We worked damn hard for it and depend on that check. I can't believe they can just take it away!"

When Jim Finley heard about the failure of the GIC to include Medicare funds in their budget, he was furious. "When the state mandated that we switch to OME coverage they accepted the responsibility of paying their share of Part B. I'm absolutely furious about the failure of the GIC and the governor to live up to their responsibility," said the DET retiree who lives in Franklin. "It's unconscionable that we've been forced into a plan that requires seniors to pay a higher premium than members under age 65."

Seventy-one year old John Jenks of Falmouth, a retiree of the National Guard, called the Association's Boston office to express his frustration. "I called my Senator and Rep. to let them know how much this hurts my wife and me. They are taking away a major part of our income," he said.

Most former housing authority employees are insured by the GIC, and Dot Landry, a Brockton Housing Authority retiree, is one angry woman. "We've been sold out by the Commission (GIC)...I'm really (expletive) that they could do that to us," yelled the normally mild-mannered Landry when she phoned from her home in Halifax. "My mother was Irish and I'm capable of getting very angry when someone doesn't keep their word..."

Arthur Blodjian is a retired Mass. DPW worker who lives in Weymouth. "We're getting a shafting, no doubt about it," says Blodjian. "The GIC encouraged me to join their plan (OME) and now they're reneging. I just had a triple bypass and Medicare paid most of the bill with the state off the hook...I'm really ticked off!"

Margaret Campbell is a retired nurse from UMass Medical Center. With her husband battling cancer, word that the GIC would no longer cover their share of the Medicare premium could not have come at a worse time. "This is a real hardship. My husband has cancer and is forced to take a lot of drugs, which are very expensive. I have to skip some of my medications as a result," said Mrs. Campbell. "I have no idea how we are going to absorb $1,400 a year."

"Making us pay the full cost of insurance (Medicare Part B) is not what I signed up for when I reached 65," said Norman Hicks, a Fernald State School retiree. Hicks, who lives in Winchendon, says he was told it would be cheaper than his other plan. "I should have known better. Yes, I'm upset and so are my friends. The state is letting us down after we worked for years at low pay."

Kay Romano retired after 45 years teaching in Revere and was forced to take the state's OME Plan because she was eligible under her deceased husband's Social Security. "I was told that I'd receive an 85% reimbursement, the GIC's share of my insurance, which pays most of my medical bills, saving the state a huge amount of money," she said. "This is not fair to retirees, many of whom have low incomes and are being badly hurt."

Department of Correction retiree John Fleming is also insured under the GIC's OME plan. "I feel like I'm being robbed," said the angry Medford resident. "Without the refund of the state's share of the Medicare Part B, I'm paying the full premium for this insurance. I thought the GIC was supposed to be on our side. Who are these commissioners?"

"What the hell is going on up there," were the first words out of Manny Goes mouth when he called from Millis to voice his anger about the Part B wipeout. "They're stealing money out of our pockets... We've got to fight this," said the Medfield State Hospital retiree. "We've got hundreds of former hospital workers in this area and that's all they're talking about... Why were they told to join the OME (Medicare) plan when they turned 65? We've been lied to..."

"When the state, or a city or town, forces its retirees to purchase Medicare and then fails to pay its share of the Medicare premium, it puts the retirees in a position that they are paying 100% for their primary insurance. Some cities and towns have been getting away with this for years and now the state is sticking it to retirees. It all started with Acting Governor Swift last year," said an angered Ralph White.

"The GIC puts out a publication, 'For Your Benefit', which is sent to retirees. This publication will never tell the truth that Medicare retirees are being forcibly used to save the state money. The publication should read, 'For the State's Benefit'."

In contrast to the state's current attitude, locally, many cities and towns, recognizing the savings to their budgets when retirees participate in Medicare, reimburse the city's or town's share of the retirees' Part B premiums.

Newton, for example, contributes 75% of the cost of retirees insurance. "The city treats Medicare Part B premiums as part of the entire insurance package and therefore reimburses 75% of the retirees' Part B payments withheld from Social Security checks," Retirement Board Director Kelly Byrne pointed out.

Retirees of the Town of Belmont received a 50% Medicare Part B payment by the Town. "Since Belmont has a 50/50 insurance agreement with its retirees, the Medicare payment is in keeping with its policy," says Belmont Retirement Board Chairman Roy Sacco.

Plymouth contributes 90% toward the cost of its retirees' insurance premiums. Like Newton, Plymouth also considers Medicare to be part of the retirees' insurance plan and pays 90% for the Medicare Part B coverage. "We fought for this benefit. It's only right," said Plymouth Retirement Board member Tom Kelley.

The suburban community of Natick provides a 50% Medicare Part B reimbursement to its retired workers. "That's the agreement the town made with our retirees and we intend to live up to it," says Natick Retirement Board Member Bob Drew.

Matt Barrett, Director of the Marblehead Retirement Board, notes that, "Marblehead pays 75% of the retirees' insurance costs, and this includes a 75% reimbursement check to its Medicare retirees each year."

Tom Welch, an elected member of the Needham Retirement Board, says that Needham contributes 50% for Medicare retirees. "It's 50% for the entire insurance package, including the Medicare Part B portion," he said.

Waltham, which has always believed in fair treatment for its city retirees, will be reimbursing its Medicare eligible members 90% of the Part B cost in the coming fiscal year. "It's a commitment that was made to our members," said Retirement Board member Bill MacDonald.

Just across the river from the State House, the City of Cambridge picks up 99% of their retirees' Medicare Part B costs. "It's a benefit that the retirees are entitled to...Medicare coverage saves money for the city," said Cambridge Retirement Board Director Ann Leduc.

Although Boston makes a 75% contribution for its retirees' insurance it only reimburses 50% of the retirees' Part B premiums. But, compared to what the GIC is now doing, 50% doesn't look too bad at this time.

We realize that a number of retirees are not eligible for Social Security and, therefore, are not impacted by the Medicare Part B issue. But those retirees should understand that their fellow retirees who are covered by Medicare, which pays 80%, and in some cases all, of medical costs, are greatly helping to reduce the cost of the entire insurance budget of the state or its cities and towns, and thus reducing premiums for all.