City Retirees: Say No To Medicare “Disadvantage”

By Susan Herzog

On January 10, more than 50 NYC municipal retirees endured the bitter cold to demonstrate outside of New York City Council offices at 250 Broadway. Another group of retirees met inside with Council Member Erik Bottcher.

The retirees were demanding that Bottcher join the sponsors of a bill that would amend the NYC Administrative Code to protect health care benefits that city retirees have enjoyed for more than 50 years. Bottcher had supported a similar resolution last year. However, the vote was blocked by Council Speaker Adrienne Adams. The group asked Bottcher to get off the fence and support this year’s similar bill, Intro 1096-2024. It was introduced by Council Member Christopher Marte and has the support of Council Members Robert F. Holden, Linda Lee, Vickie Paladino, Kristy Marmorato, Inna Vernikov, and Joann Ariola.

Why do the supporters say an amendment is necessary? While campaigning for office, Mayor Eric Adams said that forcing NYC retirees off traditional Medicare and on to a for-profit Medicare Advantage plan would be a “bait and switch” for retiree health benefits. Now, he himself has switched and is trying to force all NYC retirees on to a Medicare Advantage plan. Adopting Int 1096-2024 would put a stop to these attempts to reduce retiree health care.

The proposed amendment to NYC Administrative Code section12-126, called “Protecting the vested health insurance coverage and contributions of retired employees of the City of New York,” would guarantee that “the city must offer Medicare-eligible retirees and their Medicare-eligible dependents at least one Medigap plan with benefits equivalent to or better than those available to city retirees and their dependents as of December 31, 2021.”

Right now, most Medicare-eligible NYC retirees are covered by traditional Medicare with a supplemental insurance plan, paid for by the city. In 2014, the largest municipal unions made a deal with the city. In exchange for raises for active members they would sacrifice retiree health benefits and thus reduce health care costs to the city. The easiest way to achieve significant “savings” was for the city to stop paying for the Medicare supplement. They would do that by forcing retirees from traditional Medicare to private for-profit Medicate “Advantage” insurance. These companies make huge profits by delaying and denying care ordered by a patient’s doctor. Additionally, in 2021, the city imposed new, onerous co-pays that ill, elderly, retirees on small pensions cannot afford.

A small group of municipal retirees, led by retired NY Fire Department EMS worker Marianne Pizzitola, hired a lawyer and sued the city. They have since organized tens of thousands of retirees to join them. So far, they have won unanimous decisions in eight courts with 13 judges. The city tried to circumvent the court decisions by pressuring the City Council to amend 12-126 to allow it to pay less for retiree health care. Thousands of emails and hundreds of testimonies from retirees stopped that. The city keeps appealing and is still fighting the retirees in the NYS highest appellate court.

Passing the amendment would relieve the retirees of years of profound anxiety and the many thousands of dollars they are paying to fight the city to preserve their promised health care.

Marianne Pizzitola, president of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, who attended the meeting, said, “Erik… is just not ready to sign on …and we are going to continue doing what we have to do to educate the council members, and all of their constituents that this should be a common-sense issue. You protect retirees. You protect your municipal workers. You protect Medicare. We should not have to keep coming out here in the cold, in the wet, in the summer, to protect a federal health benefit. And the public officials who are in this building should not have …a second thought in protecting it.”

Dr. Cheryl Kunis described the plight of her patients who suffer because of Medicare Advantage delays and denials, and explained how it also harms the physicians who are struggling to get their patients the care they need.

Colette Swietnicki, a retired midwife from North Central Bronx Hospital told a reporter, “We cannot have only Medicaid “disadvantage” plans because they only work if you are not sick, and seniors tend to get sick. These plans are a big disadvantage, and they shouldn’t even be allowed to use the Medicare name. Bottcher should support us. We are his community and we have a lot of seniors in his district.”

Richard Pollak, a retired professor, said, “Mr. Bottcher is totally remiss in not supporting legislation that will guarantee results that we are contractually entitled to. We took contracts that were lower in salary but better in benefits, and were told that these benefits would carry over into our retirement. Bottcher is caving into pressures and not protecting his constituents as he has promised to do.”

Bottcher’s office has not yet responded to a request for a comment.

---

Susan Herzog is a retired teacher and long-time Villager.