Methuen Police / Firefighter Retirees
Association
MPFRA
News
|
|
EagleTribune.com,
October 11,
2010
No COLA expected for US elders in
2011
— WASHINGTON (AP) — As if voters don't have enough to be
angry about this election year, the government is expected to
announce this week that more than 58 million Social Security
recipients will go through another year without an increase in
their monthly benefits. It would
mark only the second year without an increase since automatic
adjustments for inflation were adopted in 1975. The first year
was this year. "If
you're the ruling party, this is not the sort of thing you
want to have happening two weeks before an election," said
Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social
Security Administration and now a resident scholar at the
American Enterprise Institute. "It's not
the congressional Democrats' fault, but that's the way
politics works," Biggs said. "A lot of people will feel
hostile about it." The
cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs, are automatically set
each year by an inflation measure that was adopted by Congress
back in the 1970s. Based on inflation so far this year, the
trustees who oversee Social Security project there will be no
COLA for 2011. The
projection will be made official on Friday, when the Bureau of
Labor Statistics releases inflation estimates for September.
The timing couldn't be worse for Democrats as they approach an
election in which they are in danger of losing their House
majority, and possibly their Senate majority as
well. This past
Friday, the same bureau delivered another painful blow to
Democrats: The U.S. lost 95,000 jobs in September and
unemployment remained stubbornly stuck at 9.6
percent. Democrats
have been working hard to make Social Security an
election-year issue, running political ads and holding press
conferences to accuse Republicans of plotting to privatize the
national retirement program. This
week's announcement about Social Security benefits raises more
immediate concerns for older Americans whose savings and home
values still haven't recovered from the financial collapse:
Many haven't had a raise since January 2009, and they won't be
getting one until at least January
2012. "While
people aren't getting COLAs they certainly feel like they're
falling further and further behind, particularly in this
economy," said David Certner, AARP's legislative policy
director. "People are very reliant on Social Security as a
major portion of their income and, quite frankly, they have
counted on the COLA over the
years." Social
Security was the primary source of income for 64 percent of
retirees who got benefits in 2008, according to the Social
Security Administration. A third relied on Social Security for
at least 90 percent of their
income. A little
more than 58.7 million people receive Social Security or
Supplemental Security Income. The average Social Security
benefit is about $1,072 a month. Social
Security recipients got a one-time bonus payment of $250 in
the spring of 2009 as part of the government's massive
economic recovery package. President Barack Obama lobbied for
another one last fall when it became clear seniors wouldn't
get an increase in 2010. Congress
took up the issue, but a proposal by Sen. Bernie Sanders died
when 12 Democrats and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of
Federal
law requires the Social Security Administration to base annual
payment increases on the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers, which measures inflation.
Officials compare inflation in the third quarter of each year
— the months of July, August and September — with the same
months in the previous year. If
inflation increases from year to year, Social Security
recipients automatically get higher payments, starting in
January. If
inflation is negative, the payments stay
unchanged. Social
Security payments increased by 5.8 percent in 2009, the
largest increase in 27 years, after energy prices spiked in
2008. But
energy prices quickly dropped. For example, average gasoline
prices topped $4 a gallon in the summer of 2008. But by
January 2009, they had fallen below $2. Today, the national
average is roughly $2.70 a
gallon. As a
result, Social Security recipients got an increase in 2009
that was far larger than actual inflation. However, they won't
get another increase until inflation exceeds the level
measured in 2008. The Social Security trustees project that
will happen next year, resulting in a small increase in
benefits for 2012. Social
Security spokesman Mark Lassiter said the agency has no leeway
to increase payments if the inflation measurement doesn't call
for it. Rep. Earl
Pomeroy, D-N.D., chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee
on Social Security, has introduced a new bill to provide $250
payments to seniors, if there is no increase in Social
Security. Maybe, he said, there will be more of an appetite in
Congress to pass it after lawmakers hear from voters in
November. "Costs of
living are inevitably going up, regardless of what that
formula says," Pomeroy said. "Seniors in particular have items
such as uncovered drug costs, medical costs, utility
increases, and they're on fixed
incomes." Letter to Lowell Retirees - We could be next! Health Insurance Information
Meeting As many of you know on July 13, 2010 the City Council approved a home-rule petition proposed by City Manager Lynch that would have given him unprecedented authority to modify health insurance offerings to active and retired employees. This petition, passed without a public hearing, was not addressed by the legislature. More recently, the City Manager has attempted to circumvent legitimate coalition bargaining allowed under M.G.L. 32B, Section 19, that would require a proportional vote by unions and require participation by retirees in favor of his brand of coalition bargaining with no proportional voting and again excluding retirees. It is already clear that the City Manager has no interest in including retirees on issues that greatly impact their lives. This is important to all city retirees including those who are Medicare eligible. The leadership of most school and city unions would like to invite all school and city retirees to an informational meeting to be held on October 25, 2010 at 3:00pm at the Lowell Lodge of Elks, Old Ferry Road, Lowell. We believe it is important that all retirees be informed on a number of issues. Please pass this information along to retired teachers as well as retirees of the Lowell Retirement System as this meeting is open to all municipal retirees. It is hoped that you will make every effort to attend. Margareet C. Farrell, Retirees' Chairman 10/22/2010
October 17, 2010 Cop fired for sleeping in cruiserGROVELAND — A state official said the town was justified in firing a police officer for sleeping on duty, lying about his location while on patrol, and using department computers to look for jobs and women. Police Department officials said they installed a hidden camera and GPS device in a cruiser to prove Aaron Yeo was sleeping on duty and lying to dispatchers about his location on overnights shifts. Police Chief Robert Kirmelewicz said the department also installed software on police computers to track use by officers. That software was used to document that Yeo spent an excessive amount of time while on duty searching for employment and housing in New Hampshire, searching for women on MySpace and watching videos on YouTube, according to the state's ruling. Yeo, 28, was fired by the Board of Selectmen on May 6, 2009, for those reasons as well as lying to Kirmelewicz and Deputy Chief Jeffrey Gillen during an internal investigation, according to a Sept. 29 ruling from the state Division of Labor Relations. Yeo appealed his firing to the Labor Relations Division, which upheld the firing following an appeals hearing at Groveland Town Hall. Arbitrator Michael Boyle heard and decided the case. "Mr. Yeo's consistent dishonesty and misconduct significantly breached his job duties and justified the discharge," Boyle's decision read, in part. Yeo, who according to Groveland officials recently moved to Haverhill, could not be reached for comment. Lawyer: Yeo wanted to disguise his location from terrorists At Yeo's appeal hearing, his union lawyer Stephen Pfaff said Yeo gave inaccurate responses about his location to dispatchers because he wanted to be "intentionally covert" in light of "homeland security" and other practical considerations, according to the labor ruling. Pfaff said Yeo was patrolling near targets of "terrorist threats" in accordance with Department of Homeland Security policy and that Yeo reported slightly erroneous locations so he could not be located by someone eavesdropping on a police scanner, according to the labor ruling. The arbitrator dismissed Yeo's explanation that he misled dispatchers to disguise his location from criminals and terrorists as "not credible." "(Yeo) should have informed his supervisor of this plan if that was in fact his intention," the ruling reads. "His failure to do so is damning." Yeo's lawyer did not contest the computer evidence against his client, but argued those violations of department policy should be have been grounds for progressive discipline and not immediate termination. In a brief telephone interview on Friday, Pfaff said Yeo was "disappointed" by the arbitrator's decision. Pfaff declined further comment. Yeo's last recourse to contest his firing would be an appeal to Superior Court. Pfaff, an attorney for the Boston firm Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff, said his client has not decided whether he will appeal to the courts. In an e-mail to The Eagle-Tribune on Friday, Kirmelewicz said the arbitrator's decision "reiterates what I've said before, that police officers must be held to an especially high standard of honesty. "A lying police officer loses all credibility and integrity and therefore cannot effectively perform his or her job," the chief's e-mail said. "As the record shows, I have zero tolerance for police corruption within this department. Any violations of public trust will be exposed and dealt with quickly and justly." Yeo, who was hired in 2002 and served as a full-time patrolman from April 2006 until he was fired last year, is the son of former Groveland police Lt. Harold "Harry" Yeo. The Eagle-Tribune reported in September that the elder Yeo was recently investigated by local and state law enforcement officials for allegedly collecting $73,341 from the town that he was not entitled to. An audit commissioned by the town concluded that Harry Yeo "abused detail assignments to increase his earnings" for a period covering "many years." The report said Harry Yeo collected pay for Groveland traffic details and from the Essex County Sheriff's Department, where he also worked as a civil process server, during the same hours that he was paid his regular Groveland police salary. In February, another Groveland patrolman, Kevin Woodman, was disciplined by Kirmelewicz after the officer admitted to padding paperwork to show he worked an additional hour on a private traffic detail to get an extra $63 in his paycheck. Woodman defended the action by saying "others had done it" and that padding detail sheets was an "accepted" practice by officers. After an internal probe, Woodman was found responsible on two counts of conduct unbecoming an officer and two counts of falsifying records. At the time, Kirmelewicz said the town's lawyer advised him not to release details about Woodman's punishment. Aaron Yeo's troubles began in 2008 Prior to being fired last year, Aaron Yeo was one of five full-time patrolmen on the Groveland force. He worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. The labor ruling says Kirmelewicz implemented new policies for the overnight shift shortly after he was made chief in the summer of 2008. They included requiring dispatchers to contact patrolmen by radio at the top of every hour and for officers to respond by providing "their street location at the time of the radio check." A similar new rule requires patrolmen to conduct "building checks" of specific structures and to notify dispatchers after doing so. A memo on the overnight rules from Sgt. Dwight McDonald states that officers who are at the station when they are contacted by dispatchers are to provide their reason for being there, such as that they are on a break or writing a report. In the fall of 2008, McDonald concluded that Yeo was underperforming his job duties, the labor ruling says. McDonald found that Yeo worked 113 overnight shifts and made 45 "self-initiated" traffic stops, while two other overnight officers had worked 86 and 40 overnight shifts, respectively, while making 195 and 102 traffic stops. McDonald came to believe Yeo's poor performance as an officer was because he was spending "an inordinate amount of time on department computers," the labor ruling says. McDonald decided to install software in police computers to monitor their use by officers, and eventually concluded that Yeo was using computers excessively during his work shift, according to the state ruling. McDonald documented the amount of time Yeo spent on the computer and the websites that he had visited, the ruling says. The ruling says McDonald then to came to believe Yeo was not accurately reporting his location when contacted by dispatchers. Based on McDonald's preliminary findings, Kirmelewicz ordered Gillen, the deputy chief, to conduct an internal investigation, which included installing GPS tracking equipment in Yeo's police cruiser, according to the ruling. The officers monitored Yeo's cruiser on 17 overnight shifts over a one-month period, the ruling says. They determined that Yeo's cruiser would remain stationary for extended periods of time, the ruling says. Kirmelewicz then had a hidden camera installed in Yeo's police cruiser. The ruling says Kirmelewicz and Gillen concluded their investigation and interviewed Yeo with his union representative at the police station on March 31, 2009. Arbitrator rejects officer's appeal On April 3, 2009, Kirmelewicz told the Board of Selectmen that he had suspended Yeo and requested a hearing for the board to consider firing the patrolman. The board voted to fire Yeo on May 6. Yeo appealed to the state Division of Labor Relations, which upheld the firing. At the local hearing, the town argued it had just cause to fire Yeo even though he did not have a prior disciplinary record because police officers are required to meet "an especially high standard of conduct, particularly in regards to honesty." Town lawyers highlighted the requirement of prosecutors to disclose whether an officer has been disciplined for dishonesty and argued that committing acts of dishonesty undermines the ability of the police officer to be an effective prosecution witness. At the hearing, the town submitted electronic surveillance evidence that Yeo repeatedly lied about his location when contacted by dispatchers. The evidence showed that Yeo gave different locations on different calls, despite the fact that his location had not changed, the labor ruling says. At other times, Yeo said he was in on patrol when he was in fact in the station, the ruling says. "Despite being advised dishonesty is a violation of department policy, Yeo was willfully and intentionally untruthful, misleading, deceptive and evasive" when interviewed by his superiors in their investigation, the town wrote in a legal brief to the labor division. The town also claimed Yeo slept for long periods of time while he was on duty because "his cruiser was stopped for long periods of time at locations that were too secluded to allow him to see passing cars, but were ideal for sleeping," the ruling says. The town also provided video evidence from a camera hidden in Yeo's cruiser that allegedly showed Yeo sleeping on two shifts. Yeo's lawyer disputed that allegation, saying the video was "too dark" to tell what Yeo was doing. Yeo's lawyer argued that much of the evidence against his client should not have been allowed because it was gathered by inappropriate means, including spying on his computer use and installing a Global Positioning System monitoring device and a hidden camera inside his cruiser. The union also said Kirmelewicz's interview of Yeo was inappropriate because it took place just prior to the end of Yeo's shift at 6:30 in the morning, and because the chief refused to honor Yeo's request for an attorney when he was questioned at the station about the allegations against him. 10/17/10
City calls for all retired Police Officers still working road details to come to the station to sign their 2010-2011 contract. Crooner Omer Frechette makes it big in Salisbury! 
Omer hits the Karaoke hot-spots as often as he can and can really impress with his fine tuned vocals. Catch Omer at a number of venues in the Salisbury area. 06/05/2010 2 insurers again seek
double-digit increases 2 insurers again seek double-digit
increases Earlier rejections still under
appeal Globe Staff / June 3, 2010 The state’s two largest health insurers again are
seeking double-digit increases in the rates charged to small
businesses and individuals, setting up another test of wills
with regulators in the Patrick
administration. Two months ago, the state Division of Insurance
rejected 235 proposed premium increases that would have taken
effect April 1, requiring insurance companies to continue
billing customers at 2009 rates. The new round of proposed
increases, submitted this week, covers health plans coming up
for renewal in the three-month period that starts July
1. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s
biggest health insurer, is requesting increases averaging 12
percent, on the lower end of the range it submitted earlier in
the spring. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, the number two
carrier, wants increases that range from 8.8 percent to 11.9
percent, about the same range it sought in the round that was
rejected. The new premium rates are “actuarially sound and will
cover the costs of the health benefits our members will
receive,’’ said Tara Murray, a spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue
Shield. But the rate filings are certain to be contentious at
a time when state officials are working to rein in health care
costs and insurers say they are being forced to sell policies
at a loss. Insurance Commissioner Joseph G. Murphy and his staff
will give the latest round of proposed increases the same kind
of tough scrutiny as those they rejected on April 1, weighing
“whether they are excessive in relation to the health care
benefits provided,’’ Barbara Anthony, undersecretary of the
state Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation, said
yesterday. “If the commissioner finds rates that are unreasonable
or excessive, then those rates will continue to be
disapproved,’’ Anthony said. “We are determined to apply the
law to give relief to small businesses and working families
who pay these double-digit rate
increases.’’ In filing the rate requests this week, insurers met a
deadline set during the winter under emergency regulations
established by Governor Deval Patrick, and designed to assure
sufficient time for state review. In the past, insurers would
notify the state of rate increases on the day they took
effect. Lora Pellegrini, president of the
Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, said the state rate
cap is weakening insurers and distracting from the need to
bring down underlying costs charged by hospitals and doctors
with the most market clout. “The health plans are losing
money,’’ Pellegrini said. “These rates reflect their claims
experience and what they’re obligated to pay under the
contracts they have with providers. If they can’t collect the
premiums they need, their losses are going to continue to
mount.’’ Insurers are challenging the rate
denials through administrative hearings within the Insurance
Division and in a lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court. A
judge denied the insurers’ request for a preliminary
injunction that would have let them go forward with proposed
increases for tens of thousands of customers, ruling that
administrative appeals should be exhausted before the case
comes to trial. Last month, the four major
Massachusetts health insurers posted operating losses totaling
more than $150 million. They blamed the deficit on the rate
cap, which they said was causing market chaos. In a statement, Patrick called on
insurers and health care providers to work together to solve
the problem of rising costs. “We have made progress on
providing short term relief from double-digit premium
increases and will continue to closely monitor rates to ensure
they are fair,’’ he said. “To finish the job, however, we need
all stakeholders pulling in the same direction.’’ Not every insurer filed new
proposed rate increases. Tufts Health Plan, the state’s
third-largest health carrier, included its July-to-September
renewals in the proposal it submitted before April 1. Another
insurer, Fallon Community Health Plan of Worcester, submitted
proposed rates for July 1, but declined to disclose the range
of increases it is seeking. In April, Fallon asked for
increases of 18 to 32 percent. Insurance Division officials
yesterday confirmed they had received a new round of premium
proposals from all the major health insurers, with the
exception of Tufts. But they said the policy is not to make
the proposed increases public until they have been approved or
rejected. Health insurers, for their part,
said that until the state rules on the latest proposed rates,
they will keep quoting last year’s rates to businesses and
individuals. “Because we anticipate the increases will be
disapproved, we’re quoting July 2009 rates,’’ said Harvard
Pilgrim spokeswoman Sharon Torgerson. Small businesses and health care
providers, who are watching the standoff between the insurers
and state officials from the sidelines, say they are concerned
about how the fallout will affect their operating costs and
their ability to hire and retain employees. Jon B. Hurst, president of the
Retailers Association of Massachusetts, which represents 1,300
small businesses, said the newest proposed increases should be
denied. “The message has to be sent that double-digit
increases on the backs of Main Street will not be tolerated,’’
he said. At the same time, Hurst said, he hoped the dispute
could lend urgency to efforts to control escalating health
costs. About a third of the contracts
between insurers and hospitals are being renegotiated this
year. Lynn Nicholas, president of the Massachusetts Hospital
Association, said she worries that insurers, squeezed by the
state rate cap, will try to roll back payments not only to
financially strong hospitals but to those that are weaker. “The challenge is that most
hospital margins are so thin that there is just not enough
room to give up significantly on their rates,’’ Nicholas said.
“Lower rates could force hospitals to make staff reductions
because two-thirds of their expenses is staff.’’ Robert Weisman can be reached at
weisman@globe.com.
May 29, 2010 Walter G. Shirton, 77METHUEN — Walter G. "Big Wally" Shirton, 77, of Methuen, passed away on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at his home, following a long illness. Walter was born, raised and educated in Methuen and was a lifelong resident. He served with the United States Army during the Korean War, and retired from the Methuen Fire Department in 1987.. Walter was very active with the Lawrence Y.M.C.A. where he was a mentor to many. Through his volunteer work and dedication, he came to be known as the "grandfather" of the Y.M.C.A. He served as an ombudsman for the Merrimack Valley Elder Services. In his free time, Walter enjoyed following local sports and most enjoyed time spent with his family. Walter is predeceased by his wife Frieda (Fisichelli) Shirton who passed away in 1998.. He leaves his loving daughters, Joyce M. Shirton of North Reading, Lisa A. Shirton of Methuen and Laurie J. Firth and her husband Allan of Salem, N.H.;...a sister, Claire Cavanaugh of Methuen; and a brother, James Shirton and his wife Ellie of Methuen; four grandchildren, Jessica Shirton of North Reading and Cassandra, Allan and Stephanie Firth, all of Salem, N.H.; and several nieces and nephews. He is also predeceased by a sister, Phyllis Sidon of Methuen. ARRANGEMENTS: Friends are invited to call on Monday, May 31, from 6 to 8 p.m. and Tuesday, June 1, from 2 to 4 and 6 to 8 p.m. at the Charles F. Dewhirst Funeral Home, 80 Broadway, Methuen. A funeral Mass will be held on Wednesday at 10 a.m. at St. Andrew's Episcopal Church in Methuen. Burial will follow at St. Mary Immaculate Conception Cemetery, Lawrence. Donations, in lieu of flowers, may be made to the Lawrence Y.M.C.A.,. 40 Lawrence St., Lawrence, MA 01840. For directions or to leave an online condolence, please visit www.dewhirstfuneral.com.
Runaway
health costs are But there’s no will or willingness to roll back benefits granted in palmier timesBy Sean P. Murphy
Globe Staff / February 28, 2010
Elizabeth Debski spent eight years as
Everett’s city planner, before losing her job in 2006 when a
newly elected mayor installed his own team. But Debski did not leave City Hall
empty-handed. In addition to her pension, Debski, at 42,
walked away with city-subsidized health care insurance for
life. If she lives into her 80s, as actuarial charts predict,
taxpayers could pay more than $1 million in all for her
family’s health care benefits. That’s not to say Debski manipulated the
system. She simply took what she was owed under a municipal
health care system whose generous benefits and colossal
inefficiencies are crippling cities and towns across
Massachusetts. A six-month review by the Globe found
that municipal health plans, which cover employees, retirees,
and elected officials, provide benefit levels largely unheard
of in the private sector. Copays are much lower. Some
communities do not force retirees onto Medicare at age 65.
Many citizens on elected boards - some after serving as few as
six years - receive coverage for life, too. As medical costs across the board rose
over the past decade, municipal health care expenses exploded,
draining local budgets and forcing major cuts in services,
higher property tax bills, and billions in new
debt. “It has got to be dealt with,’’ said
Richard Fortucci , the chief financial officer in Lynn. “Or we
will all go bankrupt.’’ The cost of municipal health care more
than doubled from fiscal 2001 to 2008, adding more than $1
billion in all to city and town budgets, according to state
Department of Revenue data. A Globe survey of 25 communities
found that they now devote, on average, 14 percent of their
budgets to health care, up from 8 percent a decade ago.
Somerville, for one, spends $20 million more annually than it
did 10 years ago, now devoting almost 20 percent of its budget
to health care. So far, with powerful labor unions
resistant to giving away hard-won benefits and a lack of
political will in the state Legislature to force changes,
efforts to overhaul the system have fallen short. To be sure, many municipal employees,
elected officials, and retirees are paying a greater
percentage of their health premiums than ever. Still, almost
all of the increase in municipal health care costs in the past
10 years has been shouldered by taxpayers, who are subsidizing
plans that are often superior to their own. “It’s a nice deal,’’ said Debski, now a
part-time planner in Malden. She could get insurance through her
husband’s employer but doesn’t, for a simple reason: The
municipal plan is far more generous and costs
less. “The system was there,’’ she said. “I
find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn’t take what the
system offered.’’ A crippling cost The consequences of failing to face this
crisis are on display in many cities and towns, nowhere more
vividly than in Lawrence. In that city, on Feb. 1, children were
momentarily trapped in a burning apartment building, down the
street from a fire station. But the city had recently
shuttered the station, to help close a $24 million budget gap,
and firefighters had to race from another location. The
children escaped, but the fire chief warned the city it may
not be so lucky next time. Meanwhile, Lawrence, one of the poorest
municipalities in Massachusetts, continues to pay among the
highest rates in the state for health care benefits. The
city’s health care kitty, which it uses to pay for coverage,
is currently $4 million in the red. Health care costs are not the only
budget-buster for cities and towns, of course, but their rise
has led not just to fewer firefighters in Lawrence but
diminished services across the state. Library hours have been cut in Wayland
and Hull. Wakefield has deferred road and sidewalk repairs.
Malden has introduced fees for trash pickup. Class sizes have
increased in Chelsea. Major layoffs have hit, among others,
Boston, New Bedford, Worcester, and Brockton - with officials
in all those communities citing rising health care costs as a
major factor. Revere last year closed City Hall on Fridays, to
save cash. “What am I going to do next, put a
padlock on the police station and tell people to call the
State Police instead?’’ asked Mayor Thomas G. Ambrosino of
Revere, who, like other mayors, is covered by municipal
insurance. Communities, under a 30-year-old
initiative known as Proposition 2 1/2, can raise their tax
levy each year by no more than 2.5 percent. In Revere, health
care costs are rising at close to 10 percent a year. This
fiscal year, the rise in health care expenses alone is
projected to consume all of Revere’s $1.5 million allowable
tax increase - and then some. With health costs soaring year after
year, communities must ask taxpayers for more money even while
providing fewer services. Indeed, local officials say,
Proposition 2 1/2 overrides - loathed at kitchen tables - are
often attributable, at least in part, to skyrocketing health
expenses. Voters in Weston passed a $1.1 million
override in 2006, primarily because of health care costs,
which had risen by more than 80 percent in four
years. It proved to be a temporary fix. By 2009
Weston needed more money to cover health care increases, said
Donna S. VanderClock, town manager. The town avoided another
override after unionized employees agreed to join the state’s
health care system, saving about $1.7 million in the first
year, VanderClock said. Beyond the immediate costs, huge
liabilities loom. Communities have promised current and future
retirees billions in health care subsidies, a burden taxpayers
will bear long into the future. Lynn owes current and future retirees an
estimated $450 million in benefits over the course of their
lives - five times as much as it takes in annually in taxes,
according to estimates by city actuaries. Brookline’s unfunded
liability for health care is $320 million; Boston’s is $5.7
billion. Though some communities, such as
Wellesley, Needham, and Boston, have begun putting aside
interest-earning money every year to help meet those
obligations, the vast majority of municipalities have not.
Local officials say they can barely afford to pay today’s
health care bills, let alone tomorrow’s. “We have an unfunded liability of more
than $600 million and with no plan to address it,’’ said John
Condon, Brockton’s chief financial officer. “Even if we wanted
to address it, we don’t have the money for it.’’ ‘Very, very rich plans’ Jane Teal said she only wanted to help
her hometown when she ran successfully for Lynn City Council
in 1995. She served for six years, then stepped down,
eventually moving to Florida with her husband. Today, Lynn
taxpayers are paying $22,600 a year for the couple’s health
care. “It never crossed my mind that I would
get insurance when I ran for office,’’ she said. “But I am
glad to have it.’’ Six former city councilors are insured by
Everett, plus 12 current ones. In Kingston, 10 part-time
elected officials receive town-subsidized health coverage,
including four Planning Board members, three Health Board
members, and a sewer commissioner, all of whom typically
attend two meetings a month. “That’s the way it’s been done for a long
time in Kingston,’’ said Dennis Randall, vice chairman of the
Board of Selectmen. “But in tough times, everything should be
under review.’’ The extension of benefits to local
elected officials is one vivid example of how generous many
municipal health care plans are. In fact, national data show
that state and local government pay significantly more for
health benefits than private employers. Municipal health care plans were once
deemed affordable and have helped cities and towns attract
workers to the public sector, where salaries have often been
lower. Today, however, they stand out for their comparatively
low cost to subscribers and favorable terms. Taxpayers now underwrite as much as 89
percent of active employees’ premiums in some of the state’s
largest cities, while private-sector employers often cover
less than 70 percent, local and state data show. As health
care expenses have climbed for everyone, taxpayers - already
paying a generous share of municipal benefits - have been hit
especially hard as those benefits have grown more
costly. The insurance plans many cities and towns
offer to employees, retirees, and elected officials also
require minimal out-of-pocket expenses, with copayments for
office appointments as low as $5. Most have copays for
emergency room visits of $25 or less. By comparison, private-sector copays for
office visits are typically at least $20, sometimes more, with
$75 copays standard for emergency room visits, according to a
survey of Massachusetts employers by the state Division of
Health Care Finance and Policy. Unlike most municipal plans,
private-sector plans also often force subscribers to pay
thousands annually in deductibles before insurers pay
anything. In addition, cities and towns are among
the last employers to offer costly indemnity plans, which
provide virtually unrestricted medical care. Though phased out
in much of the private sector, indemnity plans live on in
about a third of Bay State municipalities, according to a 2008
survey by the Massachusetts Municipal Association. Even with family HMO plans, which
typically limit access within a defined network of providers,
municipal premiums are, in some cases, 30 percent higher than
in the private sector, according to a Globe survey of
communities and state data. Though cities and towns have some control
over what benefits they provide, they are limited by state
law: Not only does the law subject health benefits to local
collective bargaining, the state also imposes certain mandates
on municipalities. Communities that offer health care to
active workers, for example, must also offer coverage to
retirees. The generous terms of municipal plans
compound the problem, because they create incentives for
higher use: Low out-of-pocket costs - particularly the minimal
copays - encourage subscribers to use more medical services,
thus driving up the overall expense to
communities. “When a group uses a high number of
services, high premiums result,’’ said Brian Pagliaro, senior
vice president of Tufts Health Plan. Among the communities that pay the
highest family premiums are Framingham, which spends $34,075
per family; Waltham, at $30,100; and Everett, at
$26,000. “The municipal plans are rich plans,’’
said Mayor Joseph A. Curtatone of Somerville. “They are very,
very rich plans.’’ A boon for retirees For taxpayers, there is no relief in
sight, and for one simple reason: Municipal health benefits
are especially good in retirement, and the number of retirees
has grown by a steady 2.5 percent per year since 2001, in part
because of longer life expectancies. Under state law, any municipal employee
with 10 years service is eligible, in retirement, to get
health care benefits for life from age 55, a benefit typically
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars per person. (People
such as Debski, who have 20 years public service - she worked
12 years in Salem before going to Everett - can immediately
qualify if they are terminated, regardless of their
age.) Most municipalities also grant spouses
generous health care benefits. In some cases, retirees and spouses live
decades beyond the date of retirement, the Globe found in a
review of thousands of pages of municipal retirement records.
The widow of a Lynn police officer who retired on disability
in his 30s in 1953 is still receiving city-subsidized
insurance - 57 years later. Less than one-quarter of private-sector
retirees nationally receive any health care benefits from
their former employers, said Roland McDevitt, director of
health care research for the consulting firm Towers
Watson. Some cities and towns do not even compel
retirees to use Medicare for nonemergency care once they reach
65, in effect leaving millions of dollars in federal subsidies
on the table. Instead, retirees choose to stick with the more
generous, and more costly, municipal plans. Communities, under a state law passed in
1991, can force employees to enroll with Medicare, but only if
the change is approved by the city council or town meeting. In
some places, that has proven politically difficult, given the
clout of active and retired municipal workers. Boston, Lowell, and Lawrence are among
those that have yet to adopt the provision. In Boston alone,
there are more than 1,500 retirees who are eligible for
Medicare but do not take it, costing the city almost $5
million, according to city estimates. “Getting into Medicare is a tough vote,’’
said Condon, of Brockton. “People don’t like change. And in
Brockton, we have more than 700 retirees on the voting
rolls.’’ Other municipal retirees don’t sign up
for Medicare simply because they are not eligible. Most
police, firefighters, and teachers retire before age 65, and
are thus too young to be covered by the federal system. That
means cities and towns pay as much to insure them - at least
until they reach 65 - as they do to insure active
employees. Even when retirees are on Medicare, it is
still expensive for municipalities, because state mandates
require communities to help cover drug costs and other
expenses not paid by the program. By contrast, private-sector
retirees are typically on their own. “In the private sector, when you turn 65,
most employers say, ‘Good luck on Medicare,’ ’’ said McDevitt,
the national health care consultant. “And that’s
it.’’ Tomorrow: How cities, towns, and the
state have tried and often failed to solve the
problem. Sean Murphy can be reached at
smurphy@globe.com.
Published: April 18, 2010 Eagle Tribune Methuen school unions must share in the sacrifice Ken
Willette The upcoming fiscal year 2011 budget cycle in Methuen represents one of the worst fiscal environments in many decades. In 2009, I directly witnessed a concerted effort by municipal unions to offer meaningful, deep and obviously painful concessions in order to balance the FY 2010 budget and forgo property tax increases. Unfortunately, having recently returned back to the Methuen School Committee, I have not yet identified a similar spirit of cooperation and compromise from the various school unions. This is very troublesome, especially since municipal workers will likely face sizable layoffs due to downward local aid projections, and Methuen taxpayers will have to foot a larger bill to keep pace with the state-mandated education formula. While the school administration has been able to achieve significant cost savings in the areas of transportation, energy efficiency, bulk-purchasing and a reduced complement of principals, the major union groups have failed to take a positive and constructive leadership role in proposing modest cost-of-living reductions to preserve systemwide jobs and stabilize class sizes. Last year a number of custodians and program assistants needlessly lost their hard-earned jobs solely because some union leaders deemed it unreasonable to give back some marginal (when compared to municipal workers) contract provisions to cope with the most colossal economic collapse since the Great Depression. While the Methuen School Committee unanimously approved my policy proposals to root out out-of-city students illegally attending our schools and authorize certain advertisements at school sporting events, which will save and generate long-term revenue for our community, we have not received any cost-saving proposals from union leadership. In fact, we are still currently paying for out-of-district students to attend our schools simply because their parents teach in our system, an outdated agreement that completely contradicts our newly strengthened residency enforcement policy and will be discussed at the next School Committee meeting. While all workers are paying more out-of-pocket for their health insurance, there is an absence of union leadership to consider joining the state's Group Insurance Commission (GIC) plan, saving Methuen millions of dollars in the process. Imagine the potential savings for Methuen when, for example, we compare our community of over 45,000 residents versus the Town of Hopedale, a community with a much smaller population of 5,000 residents. Hopedale will save $800,000 a year because the local government workers agreed to join the GIC. After two years of good-faith discussions, the Hopedale GIC accord serves as a model for all other cities and towns. Town workers will receive more favorable premium assessments; Hopedale's current and future budgets will be under less fiscal constraint; layoffs are less likely to occur; and residents will directly benefit from property tax stabilization, both short-term and long-term. Hopedale town workers have played a major role in taming a huge and unsustainable budget buster. Anyone who has read the Boston Foundation study on the GIC and the cities and towns that have joined the GIC plan, can certainly appreciate not only the favorable fiscal terms for participating communities but the personal financial relief for workers and the presence of program plan choices and overall quality of services. Many items are currently being considered by the Methuen School Committee, including hiring freezes, curtailing out-of-district travel expenses and consolidating departments with the City of Methuen. All ideas are valid and should be completely discussed and vetted. I will definitely explore a number of difficult yet necessary options to present a fiscally realistic, transparent and honest school spending plan to the mayor and City Council. I will also not vote in favor of any new contracts in the absence of a package of concessions during the FY 2011 budget presentation. I look forward to the challenge, as I have already fulfilled many of my campaign promises (enforcing a strong residency policy, lifting the ban on advertising at school sporting events, and supporting my colleagues' proposals to mandate greater openness and accountability). I will continue to hold the line on my fiscal conservative philosophy and maintain the trust that the voters overwhelmingly gave me last November. • • • Ken Willette is a member of the Methuen School Committee. 4/19/2010
Latest Plans by the Governor!! from the BOSTON GLOBE Some health networks drop elite hospitals Once
unthinkable, now a trend as costs soar Globe Staff / April 17, 2010 Health
insurers are starting to sell policies that largely bar
consumers from receiving medical care at popular but expensive
hospitals such as Massachusetts General and Brigham and
Women’s — a once radical idea that is gaining traction as a
way to control soaring health care costs. Governor Deval Patrick and
Senate President Therese Murray have included such restricted
provider networks in their recent legislative proposals to
control rising insurance rates. And the state this month began
offering limited-network plans to 300,000 state employees,
retirees, and their families, promising 20 percent discounts
on premiums if they are willing to give up access to some of
the Boston area’s most renowned hospitals. Dolores
Mitchell, executive director of the agency that oversees
health insurance for state employees, said she wants “to send
a message to the more expensive [provider] organizations that,
‘Hey, we’re not going to just sit still and do nothing’ ’’ as
medical costs climb year after year. But
even as state officials promote the idea, there are obstacles
to its wide adoption. Some of the state’s largest insurers
have contracts with powerful teaching hospitals and doctors’
groups that could make it difficult to exclude them. And
Massachusetts consumers and employers have long cherished
choosing from a broad range of providers. In a
yearlong investigation into rising health care costs completed
last month, Attorney General Martha Coakley cited
‘’distorted’’ contracting practices as one factor. She found
that providers with market clout have negotiated clauses in
their contracts that prohibit or inhibit insurers from
creating plans intended to steer patients away from them. She
did not name the companies involved, but said regulators and
lawmakers should move to discourage or forbid these
practices. Certain
providers “are strong enough to dictate which products get
into the market,’’ agreed Rick Weisblatt, senior vice
president for health services at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care,
the state’s second largest insurer. Harvard
Pilgrim, Weisblatt said, has contracts with a small number of
influential teaching hospitals — which he would not identify
because of confidentiality agreements — that include ‘’opt
out’’ clauses. These could allow the providers to drop out of
plans they don’t like, such as those that try to steer
patients to less expensive community hospitals for routine
services or to free-standing imaging centers for scans. As a
result, the insurer has not widely offered these types of
plans, he said. Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s largest
health insurer, has similar provisions in its contracts with
Children’s Hospital Boston and Partners HealthCare, the parent
organization of Brigham and Women’s and Mass. General. The
language in Partners’ contract, said Andrew Dreyfus, executive
vice president of Health Care Services, requires Blue Cross to
develop specific exclusion criteria based on cost or other
factors if the insurer decides to leave Partners hospitals out
of restricted networks. But he
does not believe this clause would hamper Blue Cross from
offering a plan with a limited network, which the giant
insurer is now considering selling. In
Massachusetts, private insurers typically offer wide-open
networks, meaning members can check into a pricey teaching
hospital to deliver a baby rather than go to a less expensive
community hospital, and can schedule MRIs and CAT scans in a
hospital outpatient department, even when freestanding clinics
provide similar services for less money. Amid
intense scrutiny into why health care costs in Massachusetts
are climbing 7.5 percent a year, limited networks have emerged
as the most immediate way to control costs. The governor and
Murray have proposed legislation that would require insurers
to offer limited network plans to small employers, plans that
must be at least 10 percent cheaper than open networks. Mitchell’s agency, the Group Insurance
Commission, required its two largest providers — Harvard
Pilgrim and Tufts Health Plan — to develop restrictive
networks this spring. Speaking during the hearings about
insurers and their lack of clout with certain providers, she
said, “I’m trying to put a little cement in their
backbones.’’ The
limited network Harvard Pilgrim developed for the state
excludes Partners’ Boston teaching hospitals and the Lahey
Clinic in Burlington, while the Tufts network excludes
Partners teaching hospitals, Lahey, Beth Israel Deaconess
Medical Center, and UMass Memorial Medical Center. Mitchell acknowledged that restricted
plans could lead to problems in the market, if healthy
employees migrate to cheaper plans and those with serious
illness remain in more expensive open networks because they
need broad access to the advanced care provided at teaching
hospitals. That outcome could raise costs for individuals in
the open plans, since costs would be spread among fewer
employees. Partners spokesman Rich Copp said the
organization, whose teaching hospitals could be left out of
other restricted networks as well, is concerned about making
sure patients have adequate access to all services, including
psychiatry and rehabilitation care. These services are poorly
reimbursed and many providers have stopped offering them, he
said. Insurers say their plans generally allow
customers to get permission to go outside a network if the
care they need is not provided by participating hospitals and
doctors, though sometimes they have to pay more. Membership in limited networks is small
so far, but they are gaining popularity. Fallon
Community Health Plan, based in Worcester, has seen enrollment
in its limited network grow 40 percent since 2006. It has
50,000 members, nearly one-quarter of the insurer’s
enrollment, who get a 10 to 13 percent discounts on premiums.
Members must go to community hospitals unless they obtain
preapproval to go to a teaching hospital for care not
available elsewhere. Since most of the plan’s members live in
Central Massachusetts, it might be less of a sacrifice for
them to give up unrestricted access to Boston’s teaching
hospitals. Tufts
has seen modest but steadily increasing enrollment — about
3,000 members — in its Select network offered for lower-income
residents. Caritas
Christi HealthCare began offering a limited network to its
employees in 2008, including only Caritas hospitals for most
care and Boston Medical Center and Children’s Hospital for
certain specialty care. While the plan started slowly, once
Caritas dramatically lowered the price of joining — $32 a
month for individuals compared with $150 for the open-network
plan — it took off, and now has 2,300 employees plus their
families. Cindy
McGrath, a state employee who joined a restricted-network plan
last year and this week began running open enrollment clinics
for state workers, said they are far more interested in
limited networks than they had been in the past. Health
care “is a much bigger chunk out of their paycheck right
now,’’ she said, “and [these networks] are a great deal.’’ Liz Kowalczyk can be reached at kowalczyk@globe.com. 4/17/2010
IMPORTANT INSURANCE INFORMATION As we continue our mission of protecting the benefits of the retirees of the City of Methuen, we will post links to stories and add information of our own to this site. We ask each of our readers to make contributions that are in the interest of and for the benifit of all MPFRA members and city retirees. As you may be aware, we are dilligent in working to protect the health benefits we currently enjoy. It is a real possibility that drastic changes to our insurance benefits may be made with or without our input, resulting in higher premiums, additional co-pay's, and a limited selection of doctors. This is not to mention what happens if you need medical attention out of state. 4/2/2010 RETIREMENT BOARD ELECTION All retirees are getting a notice in the mail that the Retirement Board is ramping up for the election. Currently Jim Trott sits in the seat coming up for re-election. He has taken out the necessary papers to keep his seat if elected. He has been a fine representative of the retirees for many years. It is undetermined at this time if he will face opposition, but PLEASE take the time and cast a vote for Jim Trott. We cannot afford to lose this representation! All ballots are confidential and there is a process in place where there is no possible way voters can be identified. PLEASE VOTE for Jim Trott! 4/2/2010
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
