Vaccine Mandate for PBA Members ruled Invalid

Up to the Minute News 9/23/22, 5:00pm:

NEW YORK (PIX11) – A judge on Friday ruled against the NYPD’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for members of New York City’s largest police union, directing the department to rehire officers who were fired for noncompliance.

New York State Supreme Court Judge Lyle Frank ruled in favor of the Police Benevolent Association’s lawsuit against the City of New York, saying the NYPD’s vaccine mandate as a condition of employment is unlawful for members of the union.

The ruling applies only to members of the Police Benevolent Association, which represents about 24,000 of the NYPD’s 36,000 officers.

“This decision confirms what we have said from the start: the vaccine mandate was an improper infringement on our members’ right to make personal medical decisions in consultation with their own health care professionals,” said Police Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch. “We will continue to fight to protect those rights.”

The judge directed the NYPD to reinstate police officers who were fired or put on leave without pay for not complying with the city’s COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

A spokesperson with New York City’s Law Department said they are immediately appealing the ruling, which will freeze Frank’s decision until the appeal is heard.

“It is at odds with every other court decision upholding the mandate as a condition of employment,” said Law Department spokesperson, Nicholas Paolucci.

(So far this only applies to PBA Members, only time will tell when and if it applies to all city workers, stay tuned...)

Learn More

Another decision for the city to appeal, let's see how dirty they get with this one...It seems the City has two strikes against them. Will they wait to appeal it or will they try something else, underhanded? Look below, we need your help with our own issue concerning the City Council-TIME TO GET INVOLVED!

Find out more

The UFOA explanation of our MLC healthcare Vote

On Wednesday, August 31st, there was an emergency steering committee meeting to discuss and vote on proposed changes to the administrative code and proposed legislation that the MLC and OLR would support. We first saw the MLC proposed changes when we received them on Friday evening August 26th. The UFOA thought that we did not have enough time to research the changes and examine the possible consequences, whether intentional or not. We discussed the proposal with our attorney and formulated a plan for the steering committee meeting. We spoke to several unions and informed them that we planned to make a motion to table the vote for a week so we can examine the proposal. The leaders we spoke with agreed to vote for the motion to table. We also informed them that we would vote no if we were asked to allow the proposal to go forward to the membership meeting.

When the meeting on the 31st began, the discussion included many of the concerns of those in attendance. The UFOA made a motion to table the vote and it was seconded. The motion to table the vote was vehemently apposed by the presidents of the UFT and DC37. The discussion was ended after most of those in attendance spoke on the motion to table the vote. The vote was taken and the motion to table the vote was defeated. The next vote was to recommend the proposal to the membership. That vote passed 12 yes to 2 NO and 3 abstentions, the UFOA was one of the NO votes. The administrative code changes were recommended to the general membership meeting.

The UFOA spoke with other uniform unions and expressed our concerns about the wording of the administrative code change. We all agreed that the wording could be used to divide the membership into unequal classes or pit uniformed unions against civilian unions. We worked with our attorney and had the language changed to address our concerns. The new wording in the letter agreement between the City and the MLC, which will become part of the legislative history, will allow two types of classes in healthcare. There will be a plan for active, retirees and their dependents and the other plan will be for Medicare eligible retirees and their dependents. These two classes will be treated equally across all unions in the MLC. This new wording for the legislation, is what will be presented at the MLC membership meeting along with the change in the administrative code.

The special general membership meeting was scheduled for Thursday, September 8th. The UFOA had our monthly general membership meeting on that day, and we sent a former board member to attend and represent us. The proposed changes to the administrative code and the new legislation were on the agenda. There were specific instructions to vote no when the proposed changes to the administrative code were presented. There was a spirited discussion at the meeting and several unions, including the UFOA, expressed their concerns and opposition. When the ballot was taken, 85% of the votes approved the change to the administrative code and the new legislation. There were at least 8 unions that voted no on the proposed changes and a few more that did not vote or “refused to participate”. The changes to the administrative code were approved and the next step is to have the city council vote on those changes.

The UFOA continues to fight for fair representation and to be included in the discussions about the healthcare we will all be offered. We will fight to have our members rights protected and to get the best possible coverage for all of us and our dependents.

Sincerely,
UFOA Executive Board

THE FOLLOWING UNIONS & ASSOCIATIONS VOTED "NO" AT THE SEPT. 8th MEETING:

THE UFA

THE UFOA

CORRECTIONS CAPTAINS

THE LIEUTENANT'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION (NYPD)

THE CAPTAIN'S ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION (NYPD)

THE SERGEANT'S BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION (NYPD)

THE DETECTIVE'S ENDOWMENT ASSOCIATION (DEA-NYPD)

THE DOCTOR'S COUNCIL (SEIU)

PROFESSIONAL STAFF CONGRESS (PSC)

DC-37 LOCAL 924-NYC LABORERS

DC-37 LOCAL 2507-EMT'S, PARAMEDICS & FDNY FIRE INSPECTORS

FURTHER THE PBA ABSTAINED CITING NUMEROUS LAWSUITS ALREADY IN MOTION AGAINST THE CITY AND THEIR QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES TO GET THIS THRU THE CITY COUNCIL-ONE OF THOSE LAWSUITS CAME TO FRUITION ON 9/23/22-SEE ABOVE<

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ITS TIME TO GET INVOLVED!!!

IF YOU LIVE IN THE CONFINES OF NEW YORK CITY, YOU MUST HELP US TO HELP YOURSELF-

>CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT WHO YOUR CITY COUNCIL PERSON IS<

WHEN YOU GET THE INFORMATION, EXPRESS TO HIM or HER YOUR DISMAY OVER "YOUR HEALTHCARE" via A TELEPHONE NUMBER, AN EMAIL ADDRESS or BETTER YET IN PERSON. FIND OUT THE ADDRESS OF YOUR CITY COUNCIL OFFICE AND JUST GO THERE. THEY MAY NOT BE IN THE OFFICE BUT THEIR STAFF WILL BE THERE. YOU CAN EXPRESS TO THE STAFF YOUR CONCERN OVER CHANGING THE WORDING OF THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE IN ORDER FOR YOURSELF TO BE PLACED IN A MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN-SEE BELOW OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN TO YOUR HEALTH CARE-*PROPOSED HEALTHCARE CHANGES IN THE NYC ADMIN. CODE*. IF YOU PREFER TO SPEAK TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL PERSON DIRECTLY, ONE ON ONE, YOU MAY HAVE TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO DO SO. THEN BY ALL MEANS SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT THRU THE EFFORTS OF THE STAFF. HOWEVER THEY MAY INFORM YOU THAT THE ONLY WAY TO SCHEDULE AN APPOINTMENT IS via E-MAIL, THEN DO IT THAT WAY.

THERE ARE 51 IN THE CITY COUNCIL. THE VOTE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MAJORITY FOR THE RESOLUTION TO PASS, SO THEY NEED 26 MEMBERS TO VOTE YES. WE DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN, SO GET UP, GET INVOLVED AND WE WILL SEE THIS DEFEATED. WHEN WE CALLED ON YOU TO DEFEAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, WE WERE SUCCESSFUL, WELL NOW WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN. CHECK BACK FREQUENTLY FOR UPDATES ON THIS ISSUE.

SINCERELY,

THE FDNY RMA EXECUTIVE BOARD

What the Proposed Healthcare Changes in the NYC Administrative Code Mean for our Members:

First, you need to read the 9/9/22 message to members from James Davis, President of the PSC. It explains the PSC position (and opposition to the code changes), providing context and a clear, comprehensive analysis of what this means prospectively for

members’ healthcare insurance.

Below is a secondary interpretation members might also find useful. The proposed change to the city administrative code is written in somewhat dense legal language. However, Robert Nelson, a member of the PSC Retirees Executive Committee, wrote a short description, of the proposed NYC administrative code changes for healthcare coverage for municipal employees and reirees. The interpretation is Nelson’s, but his retiree EC colleagues found it illuminating in translating the legal implications of the code changes into everyday, understandable language.

**********

Some have indicated they don’t entirely understand what the MLC and the City have agreed to regarding health insurance for both active and retiree public employees. Here’s an attempt to make it plain:

The City and the MLC want to change the city law (known as the “administrative code”) that says the city must provide free health insurance to active and retired employees and their dependents. The change would allow the City, with the approval of the MLC, to create different classes (or tiers) of workers for the purposes of giving them health insurance, and the City could then give different free health insurance plans to each class.

Right now the city law does not allow different free plans. Once the change goes into effect, the City will change the free plan for retirees to a Medicare Advantage plan from the current traditional Medicare plan. The City will be allowed to offer the traditional Medicare plan and charge a premium. The City tried to institute such a change over the last year, but was blocked by a judge’s ruling. The City has appealed,

and the case will be heard in October.

The MLC voted to support the change in the law on Thursday, September 8. The change in the law must now come before the City Council, which must first hold two hearings about it before it votes. The City wants the hearings and the vote to be in September so that the law case will be moot when it is heard.

Right now the class the City is aiming at is its retirees. But this change in the law allows the City and the MLC in the future to designate other groups of workers as classes that would get different “free” health insurance plans that would certainly be inferior.

Divide and conquer.

Find out more

THIS WILL BE THE LETTER YOU USE TO SEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL:

I am deeply concerned about the Mayor’s latest attempt to extract health care savings from City workers by amending the City’s Administrative Code section 12-126, which establishes the monthly HIP-HMO rate as the City’s minimum contribution to the cost of health care for City employees, retirees and their dependents. I urge you to vote No on the proposed change.

The amendment would not only clear a path for the City to begin charging substantial premiums to retirees who opt to remain in their traditional Medicare program, SeniorCare; it would also open the door for the City to increase health insurance costs or reduce benefits for in-service employees.

Instead, the City should be going after the hospitals for exorbitant charges, addressing the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs, and auditing current insurance providers, not balancing the budget on the backs of workers and their dependents. There are other ways to contain costs, and the City should seriously consider them. Some cities in the United States self-insure. Some use the huge purchasing power of their municipal workforce to engage in collective drug purchasing. Some deal much more aggressively with hospitals that charge exorbitant rates. New York City is doing none of the above.

For nearly 80 years, municipal workers have been able to rely on the City to meet its obligation to cover their health insurance costs in retirement, and SeniorCare has done it well, without premiums, co-pays, or prior authorizations. The proposed Administrative Code change breaks this compact. Further, it opens the door to weakening the quality and increasing the cost of active employee health insurance.

Please do the right thing and reject the proposed change to Administrative Code 12-126.

Sincerely, your constituent,

THIS LETTER WILL BE SENT TO ALL OF OUR MEMBERS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS

YOU CAN ALSO DOWNLOAD IT BELOW, PRINT IT THEN BRING IT TO YOUR CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE-AGAIN, DO NOT MAIL IT, BRING IT TO THIER OFFICE YOURSELF, WE ARE DEPENDING ON YOU!

-THE CITY'S PLAN IS TO GET THIS IN THE DOCKET BY THE END OF THE MONTH, SO WE NEED YOU TO GET INVOLVED-NOW!!!

WE WILL HAVE THIS LETTER PRINTED IN MASS FOR OUR MEETING ON 9/27/22

Find out more

"HANDS OFF OUR HEALTH CARE!"

Mayor Adams’ administration is leaning on the City Council to amend a local law as part of a long-running effort to shift thousands of retired municipal workers into a controversial, cost-cutting Medicare plan — infuriating retirees who maintain that such a switch would wreck their health coverage.

The administration’s push to enroll the city’s roughly 250,000 eligible retirees in a so-called Medicare Advantage Plan was scuttled in March, when Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank struck it down as unlawful. The plan had proposed to slap a $191 monthly penalty on retirees who opted to keep their traditional Medicare instead of enrolling in the Advantage plan — and Frank ruled the financial levy violated an administrative law that bars the city from charging its retired workers for health insurance.

In a bid to circumvent Frank’s decision, the Adams administration last week authorized the issuance of a formal request for the Council to rewrite the law in question so it would become legal for the city to apply monetary penalties on retirees who don’t get onboard with its preferred health plan, mayoral spokesman Jonah Allon confirmed.

The administration got backing from the Municipal Labor Committee, an umbrella group for the city’s largest unions, which voted Thursday to throw its weight behind the request to the Council, according to Harry Nespoli, the committee’s chairman.

Retired municipal workers were on the steps of Brooklyn Borough Hall last December to call on Mayor Eric Adams to preserve their Medicare coverage.

Marianne Pizzitola, a retired FDNY emergency medical specialist who leads the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, said her group remains convinced that the Advantage plan is inferior to their current coverage. She said the latest Advantage push from Adams and the unions is “a slap in the face.”

“It’s a betrayal,” said Pizzitola, whose group’s lawsuit prompted Frank’s ruling in March. “My phone has been going off the hook from retirees asking, ‘What the hell is going on?’ The city made a promise to us that they would have our backs with free health care — that’s why many of us came to work here and stayed for 20, 30 years. How do you take that away from us when we’re gone? Why would anyone want to come and work for them if they’re going to harm us when we retire?”

City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams (D-Queens) would not comment on the merits of the request from the mayor and the Municipal Labor Committee, but a spokesman for her said the Council “wants to be helpful in resolving this issue.”

The joint request from Adams and labor will likely have to go through several committees, where it could face stiff opposition, said a Council member with close ties

to the city’s unions.

“I think City Hall is dreaming if they think they can just slip this through,” the member told the Daily News, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of angering the mayor.

Since former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration first tried to implement the Advantage plan in the fall of 2021, Pizzitola’s group has contended that it would drastically dilute health coverage for retirees by instituting preauthorization requirements for a slew of medical procedures and services.

They’ve pointed to an April study from the U.S. Health and Human Services Department that found Advantage plans — which, unlike traditional Medicare, are administered by private health insurance providers — can “prevent or delay beneficiaries from receiving medically necessary care.”

Amid those concerns, nearly 66,000 retired city employees, ranging from cops and firefighters to teachers and sanitation workers, had opted out of the Advantage plan as of July in order to stay on their current coverage, according to city data.

But Adams administration officials, joined by municipal labor union brass, have dismissed the complaints from retirees as overblown, arguing the Advantage model would provide the requisite care.

In addition, Adams and the unions have stressed that the Advantage plan — thanks in part to its private administration — would save the city upward of $600 million a year. At a time when projections show the city could be facing a $9.9 billion municipal government budget gap by 2026, such savings are critical, even if it involves convincing the Council to change a law, said Allon, the mayoral spokesman.

“As Mayor Adams has repeatedly stated, he believes a Medicare Advantage Plan is in the best interest of retirees and taxpayers,” Allon said. “We will continue to work with the Municipal Labor Committee to take all steps to ensure such a plan can be implemented.”

Under the framework envisioned by Adams and the unions, Advantage plan savings would largely be funneled into the city’s Health Stabilization Fund, which is used to supplement dental and prescription drug benefits for municipal workers.

Due to years of skyrocketing health care costs and other factors, Nespoli, the Municipal Labor Committee chairman, said the stabilization fund is in such dire financial straits that it could be at risk of total collapse unless the Advantage savings roll in.

“Without those savings, there’s going to be a problem, there’s going to be a big, big problem for our members,” Nespoli said. “I don’t think that the retirees actually understand that.”

Steve Cohen, an attorney who represents the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, said Nespoli’s argument doesn’t paint a complete picture.

Part of the reason the stabilization fund is running dry is because the de Blasio administration used cash from it to bankroll raises for teachers, Cohen said. “Why should retirees be left to pick up the tab for that?” he asked.

Cohen also said Adams’ push for an amendment of the law could have unforeseen consequences beyond Medicare Advantage.

“It opens up a whole new can of worms because that law is the clearest protection for city workers [to get free health care],” he said. “Without that law, the city could basically take away health care at any time.”

Marcia Biederman, a former city public school teacher who opted out of Advantage, said she was ecstatic when the Manhattan Supreme Court struck down the Adams administration’s first attempt at implementing the plan, believing that spelled the end of the matter.

“But it turns out our celebration was premature because now they’re trying this,” Biederman said. “This really would affect our lives in a very negative way.

"The City Council has got to

go against this!”

Learn More

COME TO OUR MEETING ON 9/27/22 AND GET INVOLVED! THE LINE HAS BEEN DRAWN, IT'S TIME TO STOP THE CITY'S PLAN TO DIMINISH OUR HEALTH CARE!

Find out more

Adams and Unions Strike Deal on Shift to Cost-Cutting Medicare Plan

The mayor and major city unions plan to press the City Council to clear a path for a privatized Medicare plan for retired city workers.

{This article was published in partnership with THE CITY.}

At a meeting Thursday morning, the administration of Mayor Eric Adams and major unions representing municipal employees agreed on a proposal to clear the way for their long-held goal of switching retired city workers to cost-saving private Medicare Advantage plans.

The insurance shift, first reported by New York Focus more than a year ago, would likely save the city hundreds of millions of dollars a year and help pay for current workers’ benefits — but many retirees fear that it could decrease their access to health care.

At the meeting, union leaders agreed to a proposal from the administration to make a joint request to the City Council, asking it to amend city law to allow the city to charge retirees for their current health care plans. That would remove a legal roadblock that has held the switch up in court and led the insurer that had won the contract to administer the plan to back out in July.

“It wasn’t all wildly enthusiastic votes, and people were expressing qualms. But the difficulty is we’re not quite sure what else to do, because there is a financial problem here,” said Robert Croghan, chair of the executive board of the Organization of Staff Analysts, a union representing city office workers across numerous agencies. Croghan estimated that 85% of the dozens of union representatives present voted in favor of the proposal.

Oren Barzilay, president of Local 2507, a union representing fire department employees, told New York Focus that he voted against the proposal. “The law gives us protection in terms of having our current health benefits,” he said. “Why would you open up that Pandora’s box not knowing what could happen?”

The city projects that the shift to Medicare Advantage will save $600 million annually, which would go to a fund controlled by city unions that is used to pay for current city employees’ health insurance and other benefits. Without that additional cash, the benefits that the fund provides could be at risk.

The city and union leaders have claimed that retired city workers would receive the same quality of care under a Medicare Advantage plan as they currently receive under Senior Care, the free insurance plan that the city provides to most retirees. But many retirees have raised concerns that a Medicare Advantage plan would provide less coverage and carry greater out-of-pocket costs than Senior Care.

The city had planned to incentivize retirees to switch to Medicare Advantage by requiring them to pay $191 a month to maintain their coverage under Senior Care. In a March decision on a lawsuit filed by retirees to stop the switch, state Supreme Court Judge Lyle Frank ruled the city can’t force retirees to pay for their current care.

Frank’s ruling threatened the viability of the switch as a cost-cutting device. By April, over 65,000 retirees had opted out of the Medicare Advantage plan — more than one out of every five retired employees.

The proposed legislation, endorsed by the mayor’s Office of Labor Relations and the unions’ Municipal Labor Committee, would change the text of the law that Frank based his ruling on to allow the city to force retirees to pay to maintain their current coverage.

The legislation would also open the door to changes to the health insurance of current city employees. Currently, the city is required to pay for its employees’ health insurance costs up to a certain benchmark: the cost of the HIP HMO Preferred plan, which the city has offered employees for over 60 years. The proposed legislation would allow the city to designate a new benchmark plan. Selecting a cheaper plan than HIP HMO could allow the city to spend less on insurance and potentially leave active employees with narrower coverage.

The proposal is detailed in a letter from Labor Relations Commissioner Renee Campion to Harry Nespoli, chair of the Municipal Labor Committee, a coalition of city workers’ unions. The legislative change “would help ensure the parties have the necessary flexibility to obtain quality and affordable health insurance coverage for covered individuals,” the letter states. The letter also says that at least one plan for retirees and active employees would remain premium-free, as Senior Care and HIP HMO Preferred currently are.

Frank’s ruling allowed the city to eliminate Senior Care entirely, but the city hasn’t given any indication that it is considering that step.

The Adams administration is appealing Frank’s ruling. But if the City Council adopts the Office of Labor Relation’s proposed legal change, then getting the ruling overturned might be unnecessary.

“It’s an end run around the court decision, in a sense,” Croghan said.

The unresolved Medicare Advantage situation is likely to be a significant sticking point in upcoming contract negotiations between the unions and the city, City & State reported on Wednesday. If the unions think that their health care costs are likely to go up, they may ask for larger raises, which would cost billions of dollars. That could be an ask that the city is reluctant to grant, especially since current projections show it is already likely to face multi-billion-dollar budget gaps in upcoming years.

Croghan predicted that the City Council will approve

the proposed change.

“It’s something that Adams wants, and now the Municipal Labor Committee says they want it too. Why would the City Council not go along with it?” he said.

Barzilay said that public opposition to the plan, which has been vocal in the past, could present an obstacle.

“There’ll be people testifying for it, and people testifying against it. It’s just a matter of who’s more persuasive to the City Council,” he said.

This story has been updated to include information on how the proposed legislation could affect current city employees’ healthcare.

LATEST UPDATE ON MAP:

As many of us in this e-mail chain know, the City of New York is attempting to place ALL NYC Retirees, (250,000 retirees) into a Medicare Advantage Plan with what was formerly called the Alliance, which was made up of Blue Cross Blue Shield and Emblem Health.

The "Alliance" has fallen apart with the withdrawal of Blue Cross/Blue Shield from the Alliance. However, the Medicare Advantage Plan implementation idea from the City of New York is not dead. The City has turned to Aetna, who also bidded for the original Medicare Advantage contract, to be awarded the contract to replace Blue Cross in a new version of the Medicare Advantage Plan proposal.

Please read the below information provided by our Retiree group and then click on to the below blue hyperlink provided. This news article almost identically mirrors our situation in New York City,

and is what is playing out now in the State of Illinois.

A group that negotiates retiree medical benefits in Illinois (similar to the NYC Municipal Labor Committee) named the Illinois Department of Central Management Services has selectively placed 140,000 Illinois state employee retirees into a single retiree medical plan administered by Aetna. The article references many examples of how Aetna told retirees that their current medical providers

WILL ACCEPT the new Aetna Plan.

In reality many of the medical providers and hospitals named by Aetna as accepting the new plan, have stated that they will NOT accept the plan. These state retirees will now have to bear the costs of going out of network to retain their current doctors and specialists. Does this sound familiar?? I have provided a brief copy and paste of the news article to accentuate the importance of reading it in full;

"The Illinois Department of Central Management Services (CMS) initially selected the CVS-owned health insurance company to provide the sole PPO plan, generally the benefit of choice for retirees who spend a fair amount of time traveling, or live out of state.
The choice was made despite months of outcries from seniors in Champaign and surrounding counties and despite apparent inaccuracies in the list of providers and hospitals that Aetna submitted to CMS

in its April application."
Please lick on to the below blue hyperlink provided.

It is well worth your time and effort;

https://www.wcia.com/news/target3/1109169

Marianne Pizzitola will be our Guest Speaker on 9/27/22

SEPTEMBER MEETING BLOCKBUSTER!

Marianne will be our One and Only Guest Speaker at our September Meeting, to be held Tuesday September 27th, 2022 at the Elk's Club,

901 Lakeville Road New Hyde Park, NY 11040

Here's a little background on our guest speaker:

President, and Founding member of the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, Inc, an organization to unite retirees, defend and protect hard earned benefits in retirement. Under pressure, the City of NY and Municipal Labor Committee negotiated away hard earned benefits from the most vulnerable population, retirees. Many, retired for 20, 30, 40 and even more than 50 years, infirm, disabled, disabled 9/11 responders, line of duty widows, all risk losing their Federal Medicare and City supplemental coverage and be forced into a managed plan with many restrictions. This NYCO PSR stopped them. Get involved. If you are an Active NYC employee you need to pay attention, as this is your giveback in your future. We sued the City of NY in September 2021 and the Court found for us Marc 3, 2022. The City is attempting to appeal. We will fight back. Join this group of municipal retirees to save ALL of our health benefits! Founded and President of the FDNY EMS Retirees Association, a 501c3 Not For Profit organization to help members of the FDNY EMS in retirement by advocating for their continued benefits, introducing legislation to help retirees, and ensuring their health benefits are not diminished.

See you in September...

We will need a head count commencing

September 1st, 2022.

You may begin sending in your email if you will be attending the meeting. Please send it to jim@fdnyrma.org or bill@fdnyrma.org Do not send if you will not be attending. We need your name and how many will be attending. This will be a heavily attended meeting. There is parking in an adjacent lot and in the area. Allow yourself time to park and also to sign-in.

Find out more

A MESSAGE FROM: Marianne Pizzitola:

Hello Retirees!

A lot has happened in the last week. Let me summarize… ·

It was revealed that the City had lied to us, the Supreme Court and the Appellate court. We are currently reviewing our options to address. Stay tuned. https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/retirees-accuse-nyc-of-lying-to-judge-in-health-benefits-battle/ ·

As I write this, the MLC is drafting legislation to modify 12-126 of the NYC Administrative Code. See below for the explanation. If this statue is modified or rescinded, or they remove all plans offered except one, (what we call the Nuclear Option) We will ALL** pay more including Premiums, deductibles, and COPAYS, and in some cases with our health. It was revealed that the MLC (unions) and the City released a RFI (Request for Information) seeking to replace our current health plans. This isn’t an RFP (request for proposal) see this listing to understand what they are seeking, but it is the first step! Our Senior care, is carved out of the GHI CBP plan. If they kill that plan, we lost our Senior Care. If they do away with HIP HMO,

we lost the benchmark.

What is the benchmark?

The BENCHMARK: NYC Administrative Code 12-126 is how we won our lawsuit in March. The code states, that the CITY WILL PAY THE FULL COST OF INSURANCE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, RETIREES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS UP TO THE HIP HMO RATE ON A CATEGORY BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL OR FAMILY. That means that whatever the cost of HIP HMO (today it is about $860 per month for individual) the City must pay for whatever plan you choose up to that benchmark. A retiree on Medicare, OUR plans are cheap if you are on GHI Senior Care its under $200 even if you add in the cost of our Medicare, ($170.10 per month) Our plans cost under $400 per month. So do not believe someone that says we are bankrupting the funds or cost them a lot.

12-126 also provides us with Medicare B reimbursement. https://www.nysfocus.com/2022/06/15/city-cost-cutting-health-plan/ · The RFI: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/olr/downloads/pdf/rfp/rfi-health-benefits-program.pdf ·

Our appeals Case is still awaiting assignment of a date and lead Justice. NEITHER have been assigned yet. The City has to file its remaining documents by mid July, ours by August, and we will hopefully be on the calendar in September or October. ·

We are also working on the Co pay issue. This WAS in our Supreme Court case, but the City is ignoring the ruling.

We are further pursing this. Stay tuned. ·

We did a story about the Fire Widows last fall as the City and MLC plan would have affected them. (see attached PDF) ·

Many say I have AETNA or another Medicare Advantage plan (MAP). Well, you are not entirely safe! Here is why…The reason the City/MLC tried to dump us into a MAP was because the Federal Government pays the FULL cost of the plan… this removed the burden of the cost to them. With the Feds subsidizing the plan, if that subsidy every reduces, the insurer will ask the City for money. If the City refuses to pay, but passes the cost to us, WE PAY. If the City refuses to pay, and doesn’t pass the cost on to retirees, the Insurer will REDUCE our benefits. And you know what? The City and MLC did this before. 2017, the HIP VIP plan was subsidized by the Feds. When the subsidy reduced, and the city would not pay, HIP ended the drug plan, made retirees pay $150 per person per month a drug plan, and added co pays, and in some cases doubled them. And added more prior authorizations. THIS CAN HAPPEN TO ANY**

MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLAN. ·

Many healthy retirees have no issue with the MAP. Many do. The Federal Health and human Services office did yet another study and found that MAPs wrongly apply criteria not consistent with Medicare to the detriment of the senior. https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/OEI-09-18-00260.asp

Knowledge is Power. Let's get our unions to understand and protect retiree benefits, so they are here when they retire!

Marianne Pizzitola

President NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees

Find out more

MEDICARE PART B REIMBURSEMENT INFO

(REIMBURSEMENTS COMMENCED MONDAY MARCH 23rd, 2021, EITHER THRU A CHECK IN THE US MAIL OR THRU A DIRECT DEPOSIT INTO YOUR ACCOUNT.)

TO WATCH A VIDEO ABOUT THE REIMBURSEMENT,

CLICK> https://www1.nyc.gov/site/olr/health/retiree/health-retiree-medb-irmaa.page

APRIL 2021 UPDATE:

Medicare Part B Reimbursements

Medicare Differential Payments were sent out by the NYC Office of Labor Relations (OLR) on or about Monday, March 22, 2021. These differential payments are only applicable to members on Medicare prior to 2016 who did not receive the full amount that they were entitled to.

The actual reimbursements for Medicare Part B will be sent to members in mid-April. If you have direct deposit for your pension check, it will be direct deposited. If you receive paper pension checks, you will be mailed a check.

Please refrain from contacting the NYC Office of Labor Relations until after you receive your Medicare Part B Reimbursements in mid-April.

Medicare Part B Reimbursements Incorrect Amounts

Retirees who believe they received the incorrect amount on their Reimbursement should submit the differential form along with the Social Security 1099s for the year(s) you feel you were shortchanged, using the Leapfile Website.

Form:
https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/olr/downloads/pdf/health/med-b-differential-form-2019.pdf

Leapfile Website (Select IRMAA/Differential, then upload the FORM and 1099s):

https://nycemployeebenefits.leapfile.net/

If you did NOT receive a Medicare Part B Reimbursement from the NYC Office of Labor Relations, it is probably because you have not yet submitted the Medicare Part B Reimbursement Application (along with a COPY of your Medicare Card). Alternatively, if you are not currently enrolled with the NYC Health Benefits / Medical Plan, you would not be eligible for the Part B Reimbursement.

If you have already uploaded the necessary Medicare Reimbursement Forms to OLR using the Leapfile Website, and/or if you have any follow up questions with the NYC Office of Labor Relations regarding your Medicare Part D Reimbursement, you can email healthbenefits@olr.nyc.gov.

~~~~

To all Retirees,

The following notice is to inform retirees on Medicare that your 2019 Standard Part B reimbursement from OLR (Office of Labor Relations) may not have been for the full amount you and/or spouse paid. This applies ONLY to those who were enrolled in Medicare PRIOR TO 2016. If you enrolled in Medicare in 2016 or later, the reimbursement amount

should have been accurate.

If affected, you will be required to fill out a Medicare Differential Form found in a link with this e mail. The reimbursement is scheduled for some time in the 1st quarter of 2021. Follow the instructions and return with the supporting paperwork stated in Section III of the form.

***SEE LINK FOR FORM BELOW ***

ALSO those recipients and/or spouse who are subject to IRMAA and were enrolled in Medicare prior to 2016 may not have received the full reimbursement for their standard Part B. IRMAA recipients do not need to file for the differential as long as they have submitted the IRMAA reimbursement form. When the IRMAA reimbursement is paid, (October 2020) the differential for the Standard Part B will be included. The form for IRMAA reimbursement is in the link below.

Note that if you had not filed for IRMAA reimbursement in the past but had paid IRMAA you can submit for 2018 and 2017 using the form below.

*** CONTINUE TO LINK BELOW ***

An explanation has been provided by OLR regarding this issue: As Part B premiums have increased, the amount of the increase has, at times, been more than what the social security COLA increase provided to some recipients. Had the full increase of the Part B premium been applied to all, a social security recipient could have had a net reduction in their monthly benefit.

Because of Medicare's "hold harmless” provision, the monthly increase to an individual's Part B premium could vary in order to avoid a reduction in that person's monthly Social Security benefit. This results in variable amounts being paid for Part B premiums that are specifically unique to each individual. The increase in Part B premiums could vary from $1 to $318 per person. Since, the City has no way of verifying what each person pays for their Medicare Part B premium, documentation of what an individual actually paid in Part B premiums is needed.

Medicare Part B reimbursements were issued for the calendar year 2019 for Medicare-eligible retirees and

Medicare-eligible dependents in April 2020.

Any retirees who were Medicare eligible on or after calendar year 2016 are eligible for $134.00 per month

(12 months= $1,608 per each eligible person).

They receive this amount automatically.

Any retirees who were Medicare eligible prior to the calendar year 2016 must complete the Medicare Part B differential Form (see below link) and provide SSA-1099 for the calendar year 2019. Those retirees who submit this form may receive an additional amount up to $300 under the Medicare Part B differential.

This payment will be issued in Spring 2021

>>>*CLICK HERE FOR THE UPDATED FORM FOR THIS YEAR'S ADDITIONAL PAYMENT OF $300.00 AND WHERE TO SEND IT*<<<

IT MUST BE SENT ELECTRONICALLY FOR

US MAIL IS NOT BEING ACCEPTED AT THIS TIME.

Due to the pandemic OLR’s offices were closed on March 17, 2020. Correspondence arriving after March 11 was not processed. Please review the following if you were impacted by this. You will have to resubmit forms and documentation electronically if you filed forms by U.S. Mail for the following:  2019 Medicare Part B Differential, or  2019 Medicare IRMAA reimbursement, or  Initial Enrollment for you or spouse in the Part B reimbursement plan Please visit the OLR website for instructions, step-by-step video and the needed forms to complete this task. OLR home page: healthbenefitshome (nyc.gov) Medicare Part B reimbursement information forms and links to submit via e mail. health-retiree-medb-irmaa (nyc.gov) Submitting instructions health-retiree-leapfile-instructions (nyc.gov) If you are submitting paperwork for future reimbursements such as 2020 Part B differential (Form will be available in April 2020) , IRMAA 2020, (Form not yet available) or initial Part B reimbursement enrollment, (Form is available on line) it is recommended to continue with the electronic filing unless instructed differently. Please monitor the OLR homepage for guidance.

******************************

VCF NEWS:

On July 29, 2019, the President signed into law The Never Forget the Heroes: James Zadroga, Ray Pfeifer, and Luis Alvarez Permanent Authorization of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. The VCF Permanent Authorization Act extends the VCF’s claim filing deadline from December 18, 2020, to October 1, 2090, and appropriates such funds as may be necessary to pay all approved claims. The VCF recognizes that claimants will have many questions about) the impact of the legislation on their claims. The VCF is committed to processing claims without interruption and issuing full payments to those who received a reduced award. Additional details about the VCF Permanent Authorization Act can be found here.

Please check this website frequently for updates.

-FOR MORE ABOUT THE VCF GO TO OUR HEALTH CARE PAGE-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[click here>CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE CHECK-UP<click here]

About Us

Who We Are

Get Involved

We are Retired NYC Firefighters of all ranks. We meet five times per year at two locations; 901 Lakeville Road in New Hyde Park and 3051 Nostrand Ave in Brooklyn, NY. Through our Newsletter and this website we hope to keep you informed about your pensions.

Get Involved

Are you passionate about what we're doing? Let us know! We are always looking for volunteers to help us make our organization better for our members. We'll help you find a way to volunteer that best suits you. We're excited to have you join the team!

Thank You

Get Involved

Thank You

Whether you help through monetary donations, volunteering your time, or spreading our mission through word-of-mouth, thank you. We couldn't accomplish our goals without the help

of supporters like you.

JOIN US THE OLD FASHION WAY :

HERE'S HOW TO JOIN:

RETIRED MEMBER'S ASSOCIATION, INC
Fire Department, City of New York
ORGANIZED JANUARY 1ST, 1946

APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP
We offer two types of Membership.

Life Membership- one time payment of $250.00 gives you a gold RMA Membership Card and our periodic newsletters.

Annual Membership-Annual dues of $25.00 gives you 1 year of membership with associated Card, and one year of issued Newsletters.
Once you have decided on
the type of Membership you desire,

download the PDF Application above,

fill out and send with your check
made payable to the RMA
and send via US Mail to:
The RMA
PO Box 1332

Baldwin, NY 11510

[Add Payment for the Lapel Pin(s) with your Dues Check]

(see Lapel Pin above-right)

Both Life and Annual Members will receive Critical Instant Updates as

long as New Member provides a credible E-mail Address.

Lapel Pin, pictured above available for sale: PRICE: $6.00 for one pin or two for $10.00

Retired Member's Association,
Fire Dept.City of NY

Welcome to The RMA.- Our next meeting: 9/27/22, 7:30pm NHP, NY

Vaccine Mandate for PBA Members ruled Invalid

Up to the Minute News 9/23/22, 5:00pm:

Learn More

SO IS THIS FALSE ADVERTISING?

LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS?

Learn More

The UFOA explanation of our MLC healthcare Vote

What the Proposed Healthcare Changes in the NYC Administrative Code Mean for our Members:

THIS WILL BE THE LETTER YOU USE TO SEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL:

LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL: (PDF)

"HANDS OFF OUR HEALTH CARE!"

Learn More

DIABETES AND MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS

Adams and Unions Strike Deal on Shift to Cost-Cutting Medicare Plan

LATEST UPDATE ON MAP:

Marianne Pizzitola will be our Guest Speaker on 9/27/22

SEPTEMBER MEETING BLOCKBUSTER!

See you in September...

A MESSAGE FROM: Marianne Pizzitola:

NEW LOCATION AND PHONE NUMBER FOR FIRE PENSIONS

MEDICARE PART B REIMBURSEMENT INFO

About Us

Who We Are

Get Involved

Get Involved

Get Involved

Get Involved

Get Involved

Thank You

Get Involved

Thank You

Download The 2022 RMA Application:

JOIN US THE OLD FASHION WAY :

HERE'S HOW TO JOIN:

Welcome to The RMA.- Our next meeting: 9/27/22, 7:30pm NHP, NY

Vaccine Mandate for PBA Members ruled Invalid

Up to the Minute News 9/23/22, 5:00pm:

Learn More

SO IS THIS FALSE ADVERTISING?

LIFETIME HEALTH BENEFITS?

Learn More

The UFOA explanation of our MLC healthcare Vote

*What the Proposed Healthcare Changes in the NYC Administrative Code Mean for our Members:*

THIS WILL BE THE LETTER YOU USE TO SEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL:

LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL: (PDF)

"HANDS OFF OUR HEALTH CARE!"

Learn More

DIABETES AND MEDICARE ADVANTAGE PLANS

Adams and Unions Strike Deal on Shift to Cost-Cutting Medicare Plan

LATEST UPDATE ON MAP:

Marianne Pizzitola will be our Guest Speaker on 9/27/22

SEPTEMBER MEETING BLOCKBUSTER!

See you in September...

A MESSAGE FROM: Marianne Pizzitola:

NEW LOCATION AND PHONE NUMBER FOR FIRE PENSIONS

MEDICARE PART B REIMBURSEMENT INFO

About Us

Who We Are

Get Involved

Get Involved

Get Involved

Get Involved

Get Involved

Thank You

Get Involved

Thank You

Download The 2022 RMA Application:

JOIN US THE OLD FASHION WAY :

HERE'S HOW TO JOIN:

What the Proposed Healthcare Changes in the NYC Administrative Code Mean for our Members: