Members will recall the May edition of the Voice, in which was a detailed explanation of Governor Mitt Romney's scheme to corral all retirees under HMO coverage. Under Romney's proposal, retirees would only remain at 90/10 or 85/15 if they chose the least expensive plan available.

Had the Legislature adopted Romney's plan, state and local retirees, insured under the GIC plan, who remained in the Indemnity or OME plans, would have had to pay the difference in cost between their plan of choice and the least expensive HMO available. Given the fact that most retirees are living on fixed incomes, they would not be able to pay the higher premiums and therefore would have to join the lower quality HMO.

"The Governor's plan was a slap in the face to retirees. Our members earned this benefit and have already been asked to shoulder a large part of the insurance cost," said Association Legislative Liaison Shawn Duhamel. "Thankfully both the Democrat and Republican Legislative Leaders recognized this fact and decided to hold retirees harmless.

"Unfortunately, we were unsuccessful in restoring the GIC's share of the Medicare Part B premium. With a price tag of $30 million, coming up with that amount of money was just not possible at this time."

An unfortunate victim of the financial hardship laying waste upon the state budget was the 85/15 insurance contribution made by active state employees. Instead of following Romney's lead and moving active employees to a 75/25 split, the House decided to compromise and move employees into an 80/20 contribution split.

Union officials fought back hard and were successful in eliminating an earlier proposal that would have created a gradual scale for insurance contribution rates. Under this plan, active employees would have contributed different percentages towards their insurance, depending upon their base salary.

Employees who made $25,000 or less would have remained at 85/15, while all other employees would have contributed between 20-35%, depending upon their annual salary. The move would have pitted different classes of employees against each other, thereby destroying the unity that currently exists in opposing changes to the GIC plans.

"I am very disappointed that the active employees are now being forced to pay more for their insurance. They have faced the same increase in copayments as retirees," says Association President Ralph White. "At least active employees are not being hit with an extra $700 a year for Medicare. Retirees are paying a very high price for their insurance.

"In fact, if you take the combined premiums of Medicare Part B, along with the supplemental coverage being provided by the GIC, the total cost to the retiree is more than an active employee is paying for the same level of coverage."

As of press time, the state Senate had passed a proposal in their version of the FY04 budget that is similar to that originally proposed by the House, whereby active employees pay higher contribution rates based on their salaries.

Under the plan released by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, employees making less than $50,000 a year would remain at 85/15. Higher paid employees would contribute between 20-30%, depending on their salary.

Also different than the plan passed by the House, the Senate health insurance proposal has new retirees (post 7/1/03) paying differing rates for their GIC plan, based on the size of their pension. A new retiree with a pension in excess of $50.000 will be required to contibute 20%, rather than 15%.

It is unclear as to whether or not the House will accept the Senate's proposal in the budget Conference Committee that is currently underway between the two branches. Once they agree, the budget is then sent to the Governor.