Who is a member?
Our members are the local governments of Massachusetts and their elected and appointed leadership.
The Honorable James M. Murphy, House Chair
The Honorable James E. Timilty, Senate Chair
Joint Committee on Public Service
State House, Boston
Dear Representative Murphy, Senator Timilty, and Members of the Committee,
On behalf of the cities and towns of the Commonwealth, the Massachusetts Municipal Association wishes to offer comments on a number of bills before the Committee at today’s hearing. We appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback on a broad range of legislation relative to public employee benefits.
Surviving Spouse and Dependent Health Benefits
The MMA opposes H. 2203, H. 2268, and H. 1407, bills that would allow for health insurance benefits to be granted to surviving spouses and the dependents of surviving spouses even if those surviving spouses have remarried. Currently, health insurance benefits are terminated or reduced if a surviving spouse remarries, which is consistent with standard policies and practices received by most of the residents of Massachusetts. By qualifying an unknown number of individuals to receive health benefits, this legislation would guarantee a generous benefit for life, even though a surviving spouse has remarried and is no longer on his or her own. This unfunded mandate would drive up costs for taxpayers and increase the OPEB liability of cities and towns.
Group Insurance Commission
We have concerns about H. 2288, a bill that would add an additional seat on the Group Insurance Commission for a representative of the Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists (MOSES). The 13-member Commission is currently made up of an equal number of members representing management and labor interests, plus neutral parties. To add an additional labor seat without a management seat would compromise the delicate balance of the Commission. We respectfully ask the Committee to reject this bill, or if a seat is granted to MOSES that the bill be amended to also add an additional management seat.
The MMA points out the H. 2408 and S. 1352, bills that would change the withdrawal period for municipalities from the Group Insurance Commission (GIC) and expand a community’s ability to access claim data, are no longer necessary due to outside sections passed in the FY16 budget. Outside sections 56 and 59 in the FY16 budget change the date of transfer intervals from either 3 or 6-years to an option to withdraw after 2-years after the initial 3-year period. Sections 58 and 61 allow for a written request by the appropriate public authority to the GIC for claims history from the previous year, including subscriber count, covered lives count, total paid medical
claims, and total paid prescription drug claims. The GIC has 60 days to comply with the request and may charge a fee of up to $1,000. These changes apply to communities that entered the GIC utilizing either Section 19 or Section 23 of Chapter 32B.
Premium Contribution Rates
The MMA opposes H. 2387, a bill that would pro-rate health insurance contribution rates for municipal employees. While some communities already find pro-rating benefits a useful tool in managing health insurance costs, the lack of specificity in this bill leaves municipalities vulnerable to paying for benefits for an additional group of employees currently not receiving a premium contribution. In many communities, employees that work less than a certain number of hours are allowed to be on the group health insurance but must pay 100% of the cost of their premium. This bill is silent on that group of employees, and therefore could leave the municipality responsible for a hefty contribution. This would be a significant new unfunded mandate on municipalities, and we respectfully ask the Committee not to advance this bill.
We strongly oppose S. 1343, a bill that would guarantee a lifetime freeze in the percentage of health insurance premiums paid by municipal employees once they retire. This would permanently strip cities and towns of their existing ability to adjust the premium percentage for anyone who has already retired, even in communities where the contribution split is very favorable for employees and for those who receive generous pensions. This provision received a significant amount of discussion during the conversation about retiree health benefits reform. We are extremely concerned about any legislation that would effectively eliminate the most important tool that cities and towns can use to carefully manage the taxpayer-funded cost of retiree health benefits. Only a very, very small number of private sector companies provide any subsidized health plan in retirement, yet taxpayers are paying guaranteed health insurance benefits for life for retired public employees, often at a very high contribution rate. We urge the Committee to not strip cities and towns of their existing and appropriate legal authority to review
retiree contribution ratios.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on these measures, and for your interest in these important and serious local government and taxpayer concerns. The MMA looks forward to continuing to work with you throughout the legislative session. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to have your office contact me or MMA
Senior Legislative Analyst Katie McCue at (617) 426-7272 ext. 123 at any time.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey C. Beckwith
Executive Director & CEO