A Manhattan judge ruled Thursday that Mayor Adams’ administration cannot slap a financial penalty on retired municipal workers who opt out of the city’s controversial new Medicare plan, marking a major win for a group of retirees who fought the health insurance switch in court for months.
The effort by the administration to levy a $191 monthly fee on retirees who want to keep their current coverage instead of enrolling in the new Medicare Advantage Plan runs counter to longstanding local administrative law, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Lyle Frank wrote in a decision.
The law in question, Frank continued, requires the city to “pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, city retirees and their dependents.” Any attempt to impose a premium or other cost for coverage is thereby illegal, he ruled.
“This court holds that this is the only reasonable way of interpreting this section,” the judge wrote.
Frank’s decision caps a heated court battle between the city and a group of retired city workers that began last year under former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration.
In announcing the plan last fall, de Blasio’s administration presented Medicare Advantage as a fiscal boon that would save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars every year because it is subsidized by the federal government at a higher rate. At the same time, the administration maintained the new plan would provide the city’s roughly 250,000 Medicare-aged retirees with health coverage that’s comparable to what they’re currently receiving.
But the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees, a group of ex-cops, firefighters and other retired workers, sued over the move, charging that the new plan would result in inferior coverage, including by imposing complex new preauthorization rules for specific medical procedures.
After vowing on the campaign trail to make sure the new plan wouldn’t be a “bait and switch” for retired workers, Adams announced last month that he would move ahead with implementing it as envisioned by de Blasio, angering retirees who said he was going back on his promise by keeping the $191 penalty in place.