October DA Reinforces United for Change allegation (Complaint #21) that the UFT/Unity Caucus Shuts UFC Out at DA - Unity Denies DA Plan

Sunday, October 23, 2022

The UFC Committee alleges that the UFT has violated the LMRDA with a range of conduct relating to the conduct of the Delegate Assembly, the UFT’s representative legislative body. These allegations are broadly divided into three categories: (a) alleged violations of Roberts Rules; (b) procedural inadequacy; and (c) procedural changes made in conjunction with the election... UFT Election Complaint #21

For decades some Unity Caucus people have been telling us how Unity and the leadership prepped for Delegate Assemblies through what they call their "Speakers Bureau". People get assigned roles. They even rehearse. They held two rehearsals for a recent DA so Mulgrew could get it right. Mulgrew even has seating plans. People are set up to ask certain questions that allow Mulgrew to expand on his already way too long opening report. They have designated plants to speak on leadership backed resos and people known as "call the question" plants to end debates. One former Unity told me a clue is when Leroy Barr removes his glasses. Which makes this report Leroy gave at the Oct. 3 Ex Bd hilarious:

UFT President Michael Mulgrew does not determine who is called on based on caucus affiliation...Concerning the allegation that no delegate not affiliated with the UC has been permitted to present a resolution and no UFC candidate member has been recognized during the new motion period of the Delegate Assembly, this is false. While the UFT does not track caucus affiliation for attendees or speakers at Delegate Assemblies, UFT rejection of UFC Complaint #21 - LOL

While I don't expect the Department of Labor or the AFT to rule against the UFT on the way they run the Delegate Assembly, we need to keep pointing their behavior. Last year's - a UFT election year - the behavior by Unity was the worst as Mulgrew shut out voices of the opposition at last years' DAs after the opposition had won or came close on some resos. 

Unity shuts out opposition voices by controlling the 10 minute New Motion period by inserting its own motions and making it look like they are random. 

Ex Bd UFC member Nick Bacon exposed the continuing behavior in his report on the Oct. DA:

No time for opposition: 

Mulgrew called on one opposition member all night – H.S. executive board member, Ilona Nanay (MORE), who asked a good question (and got a bad answer) on changes to the city council administrative code. It was no accident that Mulgrew called on a known opposition member during the question period, but not during the new motions period. During a question period, it’s easy for Mulgrew to regain control of the room. He can spend lots of time answering a short question, and making it clear that his perspective is the right perspective. 

During a new motion, opposition has far more space to convince the audience. Mulgrew knows that, so we haven’t been called on since last November, 2021 to raise one (and that’s when I was technically still a member of his Unity caucus). It’s also worth noting how obvious it was that Mulgrew knew who he was picking in advance. One of the people he called on, Maggie Joyce, is someone he calls on frequently to raise new motions. She is a familiar Unity face to him, often present at UFT functions. Another of the people he called on was raising a motion he noted before it was even raised (on migrant children).

Nick points out how Unity prevented UFC from presenting a strong healthcare reso to protect the members (rejected in a strict party vote at the UFT Ex Bd - Oct. 3: 

Our healthcare reso didn’t stand a chance. We didn’t even get to the business of motions on 10/12’s agenda. We lost all that to the most brainwashing filibuster Mulgrew has ever given. I’ll give my same advice again – if you want to see diverse union perspectives, come to executive board meetings where you have any chance of actually seeing them.

Unity put two "message" resos on the agenda - on immigrants and support for Iranian women - and watch them attack us for calling them out on this as an attack on the substance of the resos - not true - they could have been added as special business and not taken away from the normal 10 minute new motions. 

This tactic is intentional and happens time and again when they are threatened with a strong oppo reso and we will raise this tactic with the Department of Labor, though I don't think they will get what we are talking about.

Leadership sponsored resos are presented to the Ex bd and then put on the regular agenda of the DA. The ten minute time had been used by the opposition for decades to raise new motions. So especially since Mulgrew took over the UFT, Unity has coopted this time period to raise "late" resos, often handed out unlabeled as to sponsors. Now I understand that stuff may come up last minute -- so my suggestion is to allow them to do this but not count it against the 10 minutes. And if Mulgrew doesn't filibuster for an hour this would be easy.

Adding to the hilarity are the examples they cite of calling on UFC candidates at times before UFC even existed. The funniest was this:

At the November 17, 2021 Delegate Assembly, eventual UFC Executive Board candidate Nick Bacon made a motion regarding potential health care plan changes, which was voted on and defeated;

Nick, who did not become a candidate for UFC until January 2022, pointed out at the Exec Board meeting he was still in Unity in November 2021. In fact, my guess is that Nick was turned off to Unity due to their behavior at the DA. In fact, over the past 25 years, a number of people who were neutral delegates were pissed off enough at the DA to move toward the opposition.

And on this one from the UFT report:

At the November 17, 2021 Delegate Assembly, eventual UFC Executive Board candidate and member of the Educators of NYC (EONYC) caucus Daniel Alicea had a motion listed on the agenda as a special order of business, regarding the UFT’s position towards mayoral control of New York City public schools, which Mr. Alicea withdrew from consideration;

Daniel, who a year before the election was still fairly neutral about Unity - in fact he voted for Unity in the 2019 election - tried to get a mayoral control reso on the agenda in the spring of 2021 but found himself thwarted at every turn and withdrew his reso after its relevance had expired. That they used this example at a time when UFC did not exist and Daniel was not associated with the opposition - yet - makes their response even more of a farce.

In my opinion the thwarting of his attempt to get a discussion going on mayoral control at the DA was what helped open his eyes. When Daniel raised the point that many of the speakers at DAs are UFT employees on the payroll Unity went ballistic on him - he became public enemy #1.

Below is the complete section of the UFT report:

Complaint #21 – The Allegations Do Not Demonstrate Violations Of The LMRDA

The Facts Michael Mulgrew, UFT, Doesn’t Want You to Know - Marianne - NYC Org of Public Service Retirees

The UFT, showing signs of panic on the healthcare issue, sent out an FAQ to chapter leaders trying to 'splain themselves. Last night I was on a zoom with people from the NYC Organization of Public Service Retirees - the group behind the lawsuit, parsing the Mulgrew FAQ which some have termed pure bullshit. I'm working on my own version of parsing this but here is their response.

Now watch UFT staff start appearing at your schools to sell the program and convicne you to accept a deal where you get a raise but use a chunk of it to pay more for your healthcare.

The Facts Michael Mulgrew, UFT, Doesn’t Want You to Know

1. UFT Claim: Mulgrew stated they did not borrow from the Stabilization Fund causing our current health care crisis.

Truth: The Stabilization Fund has been improperly used. It’s been used as a piggy bank to offset City expenses which had not been budgeted. Two examples: in 2009, an ongoing, annual payment of $112M was agreed to, primarily to reduce layoffs. In 2014, a one-time $1 billion payment was made to NYC from the Stabilization Fund to largely pay for UFT raises.

2. UFT Claim: The UFT “fact sheet” claims that the City is spending $11.8 billion in FY 2023 on health care expenses.

Truth: Facts matter: the City’s adopted budget shows healthcare expenses of $7.8 billion. We are not trying to hide the fact that healthcare is expensive, and no one is against trying to find savings. But we need to start with accurate numbers.

3. UFT Claim: “Mulgrew stated “...not a single health care benefit was either lost or diminished during that three-year period as a result of these cost-saving measures.”

Truth: Benefit changes including deductibles, copays and increased prior authorizations were added to the plan. These are diminished benefits. This year they are removing Montefiore from the preferred network adding co-pays, and narrowing the network for imaging and urgent care. All new City hires are automatically forced into the HIP HMO. That may be a prudent way for the City to save on health insurance costs, but it is a diminution of benefits.

4. UFT Claim: Mulgrew stated Medicare Advantage (MA) offers the same benefits as Traditional Medicare.

   Truth: Medicare Advantage is nothing like traditional Medicare, while the same medical conditions are covered, Medicare Advantage has two main differences: far fewer doctors participate in Medicare Advantage plans; and doctors and their patients have to endure the bureaucratic hurdles – and proven dangers – of prior authorization. Placing a private insurance company – making medical decisions – between the doctor and her patient is a fundamental difference.

5. UFT Claim: Mulgrew states his “custom” MA plan is the only PPO MA plan.

   Truth: There are lots of PPO Medicare Advantage plans offered by many different insurance companies. Period.

6. UFT Claim: Mulgrew says, “The New York City Medicare Advantage Plus Plan, negotiated by the MLC, was a totally new, unprecedented version of Medicare Advantage that was ONLY for New York City municipal retirees and their families.”

Truth: It is not a unique plan and it is not even a particularly good Medicare Advantage plan. The only true parts of the statement is that it was negotiated by the MLC; and it was “only for New York City municipal retirees and their families.” DUH.: the MLC is not about to negotiate on behalf of teachers in Dubuque.

7. UFT Claim: Mulgrew says, “This new plan negotiated by the MLC and the city was, in fact, a Medicare program. We were able to access federal funding because it is a public program.”

Truth: Medicare Advantage is a public-private partnership: Federal money that goes to a private insurance company. By forcing people out of their traditional Medicare-and-Supplemental insurance program that retirees have enjoyed and relied upon for more than 50 years, the City was attempting to relieve itself of the cost and shifting it to the Federal government. But you get what you pay for: Medicare Advantage is a fundamentally inferior program compared to traditional Medicare. It is nothing more than a budgetary gimmick on the backs of retirees.

8. UFT Claim: Mulgrew says, “The new plan was a custom, large-group version of Medicare Advantage developed for New York City municipal employees only. It was modeled after GHI SeniorCare and was filled with features that made it the same or better than current GHI SeniorCare but at lower cost to the city.”

Truth: The new Medicare Advantage plan is nothing – absolutely nothing – like traditional Medicare plus SeniorCare. Traditional Medicare does not have prior authorization restrictions; the proposed Medicare Advantage plan had over 100 categories of tests and procedures that will limit retirees’ access to health care. Virtually all doctors accept traditional Medicare. Hundreds of New York area doctors said they were not going to accept this plan. And for retirees living outside of the New York area, their access to participating doctors was going to be even more restricted.

9. UFT Claim: Mulgrew stated, “A state judge’s recent ruling illuminated an issue with a part of the administrative code (Section 12 -126) that allows for a dangerous interpretation. The judge said the administrative code required the city to only offer premium-free plans.”

Truth: The Court said no such thing. The City and unions argued that should be the interpretation of 12-126, and the Court rejected it. The Court said that if the City included a plan in its range of offerings, the City had to pay up to the defined price cap.

10. UFT Claim: Mulgrew said that if the Court accepted the retirees’ (winning) interpretation, such a mandate would eliminate the MLC's and the city's authority to offer multiple health care plans, since the “city and the MLC would be unable to absorb the cost of multiple premium-free plans.”

Truth: That makes no sense. The Court’s order made clear that the City must pay for plans offered by the City up to the statutory cap: the price of the HIP-HMO.

11. UFT Claim: Mulgrew stated, “Without this change in code, the city may choose to save costs by offering only one health care option that isn’t up to our standards.”

Truth: In the 1992 Health Agreement, the City is obligated to negotiate all aspects of health care with the MLC. The City cannot get rid of these choices of plans unless the MLC agrees to it. Retirees live all over the country and require plans that include their local doctors and hospitals. One size does not fit all.

 

FROM AMA: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/prior-authorization/what-prior-authorization

What is prior authorization?

Prior authorization is a health plan cost-control process that requires physicians and other health care professionals to obtain advance approval from a health plan before a specific service is delivered to the patient to qualify for payment coverage.

What experts are saying about prior authorization

In today’s physician practice, the prior authorization process is typically manual and time consuming, diverting valuable resources away from patient care. In addition, prior authorization can delay treatment and impact optimal patient health outcomes.

Fixing prior authorization is a core element of the AMA Recovery Plan for America’s Physicians. The AMA works to right-size prior authorization through advocacy efforts and significant research focused on physician concerns over patient care delays, administrative costs and workflow disruptions.

Prior authorization impacts quality patient care

AMA research shows that prior authorization is a barrier to providing timely, patient-centered care. According to the AMA’s annual prior authorization physician survey (PDF), among physicians surveyed:

• 91% reported that prior authorization can lead to negative clinical outcomes
• 82% said prior authorization can lead to patients abandoning their course of treatment
• 34% said prior authorization has led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care

In the June 16, 2022, episode of the “AMA Thriving in Private Practice” podcast, prior authorization expert Heather McComas, AMA director of administrative simplification initiatives, notes that from this survey, “An overwhelming majority of physicians, 93%, indicated that prior authorization can delay access to medically necessary care. And this just isn't about making people wait or inconveniencing them. It actually has negative impacts on their health.”

Prior authorization woes can also extend to employers. While health insurers tout prior authorization as a cost-saving measure, the AMA survey also found that it can lead to absenteeism and a less productive workforce.

Related Coverage

Putting patients first means tackling prior authorization

Prior authorization is an administrative burden

Prior authorization costs valuable time for physicians and health care staff. AMA’s prior authorization physician survey reports that physicians complete an average of 41 prior authorizations per physician per week–this workload translates to almost two business days of physician and staff time. 

McComas notes, “it's also disturbing to note that 40% of physicians indicated that they have hired practice staff just to do prior authorization. Again, we're adding a lot of administrative costs to our health care system just to do paperwork.”

AMA offers tips to help physicians reduce the prior authorization burden in their practice (PDF), and strongly advocates for health plans to offer automated, streamlined processes.

Momentum to fix prior authorization is building

AMA continues to fight excessive and unnecessary prior authorization through reform initiatives underway at both the state and federal levels. In addition, the AMA adopts policies to minimize the current impact of prior authorization on practices.

In a June 27, 2022, AMA Moving Medicine video update, Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) discusses a current bipartisan legislative effort, the “Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act,” that would help reduce unnecessary delays in care by streamlining and standardizing prior authorization under the Medicare Advantage program, providing much-needed oversight and transparency of health insurance for America’s seniors.

“The bill would establish an electronic prior authorization process,” says DelBene, “so we can be speedy about getting information exchange. It would require HHS to establish a process for real-time decisions for items and services that are routinely approved. Again, there's no reason for something that's routinely approved to be delayed.”

Prior authorization efforts at the state level

AMA is committed to fix prior authorization by working with state legislators and medical societies to remove insurance company interference in the timely delivery of patient care.

As the demand and need for such reforms continues to grow, the AMA has created a model bill (PDF) and related issue brief (PDF) that medical societies can use to begin efforts to address prior authorization in state legislative processes.

Related Coverage

Why prior authorization is bad for patients and bad for business

Explore other AMA resources on prior authorization

Learn more about AMA’s grassroots advocacy campaign on prior authorization reform at FixPriorAuth.org. The FixPriorAuth campaign also includes a call to action. Other key AMA prior authorization resources include:

• Prior authorization reform initiatives
• Prior authorization reform resources
• Prior authorization practice resources
• Prior authorization research & reports
• AMA Journal of Ethics: Should Clinicians Be Activists?
• AMA Ed Hub™:
  • Administrative Burden and Costs of Prior Authorizations in a Dermatology Department: Interview with Aaron M. Secrest, MD, PhD, author of Administrative Burden and Costs of Prior Authorizations in a Dermatology Department
  • “Refocusing Medication Prior Authorization on Its Intended Purpose”
  • “Administrative Burden and Costs of Prior Authorizations in a Dermatology Department”

---

Reviewed by: Heather McComas, director, administrative simplification initiatives, and Emily Carroll, senior legislative attorney, Advocacy Resource Center

Reviewed on: July 12, 2022

 

UFT Ex Bd member Ronnie Almonte Superb Summary - The UFT's Health Care Strategy is a Race to the Bottom

Union officials justified these concessions by invoking talking points you’d expect to hear from the boss: rising medical costs are hurting the employer’s pockets, there are workers who are taking advantage of the more costly benefits (e.g., hospital visits), and besides, others have it worse. These points were repeated by UFT officials at this October’s Delegate Assembly meeting. They serve to defend past—and future—health care givebacks.... Ronnie Almonte

I loved this piece so much I read it 3 times and am sharing it all over the place. It is one of those articles I have wanted to write myself but too many brain cells are not operating at full speed. And he included my favorite comparison to the UFT position on healthcare with the arguments charter schools make.

UFT officials have gone so far as to echo talking points used by ed reformers hellbent on privatizing public education. It’s tragic to witness at Executive Board and Delegate Assembly meetings. The UFT officials consecrate the idea of “choice” (of the city to provide multiple, if unequal, health plans), just as charter school companies invoke parental “choice” to plunder money and space from purposefully underfunded public schools. They insist the amendment will increase our bargaining power, but its decades-long decay is precisely how we got here, grasping at straws. They even deny that Medicare Advantage is private because it’s federally funded, revealing a spectacular obliviousness to both history and logic. School vouchers are government funded; for decades they have covered tuition at private schools for the families who use them. Medicare Advantage, unlike Medicare, is managed by big, for-profit insurance companies.

Choice has become a right wing trope. The UFT is using the same terminology. I asked Mulgrew at the RTC meeting the other day why the UFT is joining Republican attempts to gut Medicare -- well actually so are the Democrats.

The UFT's Health Care Strategy is a Race to the Bottom

The union's new push to privatize Medicare for public sector retirees hurts everyone but insurance companies

Ronnie Almonte Oct 20

 https://www.ronniealmonte.com/p/the-ufts-health-care-strategy-is

Negotiations over a new DOE-UFT contract just started—a month after the old one expired—and already it’s looking bad. The city implied that it would not bargain over salary raises until the public sector unions can come up with additional health care savings, according to an email from UFT President Michael Mulgrew. The unions, who negotiate over health care together through the Municipal Labor Council (MLC), have reduced the city’s liability by $4.5 billion since 2014, when they became junior partners in the de Blasio administration’s efforts to cut costs. But the 2014 health care savings agreement—which was followed by a second in 2018—was a bad move for union members. Not only did it raise costs for NYC’s public sector workers and restrict their access to care. It set a terrible precedent of exchanging health care cuts for meager salary raises, hamstringing our influence over the bargaining process as we’re seeing now.

The 2014 and 2018 agreements imposed new burdens on public sector workers. Co-pays for urgent care and hospital visits tripled in 2016, for example. A form of two-tier health care rolled out in 2018, where new hires were forced into the (still premium-free) HIP-HMO plan without the choice of enrolling in the popular GHI-PPO plan—itself a violation of the UFT contract*. Union officials justified these concessions by invoking talking points you’d expect to hear from the boss: rising medical costs are hurting the employer’s pockets, there are workers who are taking advantage of the more costly benefits (e.g., hospital visits), and besides, others have it worse. These points were repeated by UFT officials at this October’s Delegate Assembly meeting. They serve to defend past—and future—health care givebacks.

The MLC’s newest savings scheme would throw retirees under the bus. It would force them to switch from Medicare and the Medigap insurance (which covers whatever Medicare doesn’t) that the city pays for, to a privately managed but federally-funded Medicare Advantage plan. This would save the city another $600 million a year, and the idea is to funnel that savings into the underfunded Health Stabilization Fund (HSF) to cover health care costs for in-service workers. Retirees have resisted this switch, pointing out that Medicare Advantage companies (many of whom are being investigated for fraud) are for-profit, and maximize their profit margins by withholding care from patients, through strategies such as excessive prior approvals. Retirees would be able to keep their Medicare but pay $191 monthly (double for couples) out their own pockets. This scheme would have gone into effect earlier this year, but a judge blocked its roll out. The city is required by law (Administrative Code 12-126) to offer a premium-free health plan to in-service workers, retirees, and dependents and pay the equivalent of the full cost of the HIP-HMO plan. Most people are on the GHI-PPO plan, which is slightly more expensive, so the city uses the HSF to pay the difference. The city would be breaking the law if it stopped paying Medigap insurance because it’s legally required to pay for a plan, and Medicare Advantage, again, is federally funded. The judge’s decision was a victory for retirees, who for over a year have been protesting the city as well as the union officials whom they rightfully see as complicit.

But this victory was temporary, and the MLC’s steadfast commitment to Medicare Advantage now endangers all union members. In September the MLC’s union presidents (led by UFT’s Mulgrew) voted—without consulting the rank-and-file they’re supposed to represent—to lobby the City Council to amend Administrative Code 12-126, the law that protects quality, premium-free health care. Mulgrew insisted at the October DA meeting that any amendment would preserve premium-free coverage for retirees and in-service workers alike. He and the MLC want the law amended such that the city can legally create different plan options, with different funding benchmarks, to different “classes” of individuals—in this case, in-service workers and retirees. Not only is this a lot of hoops-jumping to save money for an employer who always cries broke. It’s also quite the Pandora’s box to open. In the short-term, the amendment could mean a lower benchmark for the city’s contribution and thus the replacement of GHI with an inferior premium-free plan. Indeed, in June the city and the MLC put out a request for information from different insurance companies. In the long-term, since the amendment would eliminate equal treatment in health coverage, it would establish a precedent for the city to later group in-service workers into classes with unequal coverage.

What a mess. UFT and DC37 officials blame it on rising health care costs, but this train wreck was also caused by years of union inaction. When the 2014 health care savings agreement was made, the UFT allowed the city to use $1 billion from the HSF to pay for retroactive raises. Most public sector employees, including UFT members, had worked years under Mayor Bloomberg without new contracts and raises. The UFT’s strategy, which was no strategy at all, was to wait out Bloomberg. But in the end, Bloomberg won. Not only was he able to get the workers themselves to pay for their meager, overdue raises (unions contribute to the HSF). Bloomberg successfully enlisted the union officials to supervise the slow-motion erosion of their members’ salaries and benefits. The plan to wait out Bloomberg led the MLC, with the UFT and DC37 at its helm, to strike a Faustian bargain with new mayor Bill de Blasio—one where payment for money owed would establish a zero-sum game between raises and health care for now and forever. By not choosing confrontation, the unions got co-optation.

Decades of concessionary bargaining and top-down unionism have truly conservatized the labor officialdom. UFT officials have gone so far as to echo talking points used by ed reformers hellbent on privatizing public education. It’s tragic to witness at Executive Board and Delegate Assembly meetings. The UFT officials consecrate the idea of “choice” (of the city to provide multiple, if unequal, health plans), just as charter school companies invoke parental “choice” to plunder money and space from purposefully underfunded public schools. They insist the amendment will increase our bargaining power, but its decades-long decay is precisely how we got here, grasping at straws. They even deny that Medicare Advantage is private because it’s federally funded, revealing a spectacular obliviousness to both history and logic. School vouchers are government funded; for decades they have covered tuition at private schools for the families who use them. Medicare Advantage, unlike Medicare, is managed by big, for-profit insurance companies. Bloomberg Businessweek states, “Selling private versions of the U.S. government health program for seniors—known as Medicare Advantage plans—is among the fastest-growing and most profitable markets in health care.” UFT officials have claimed to be for federal universal health care. But if they succeed at imposing Medicare Advantage, they will have helped channel money to the greatest opponents to single payer. The UFT has really tied itself in knots, and we’re all paying for it.

We’re up against a mayor so draconian that he had cut school budgets while sitting on billions of dollars of federal COVID relief money. Labor stands a lot to lose, but also win if it can adjust its sails. Reversing the decades-long trend of givebacks would help attract and retain educators, whose growing experience will help improve academic outcomes. Fighting for pro-worker policies would help restore legitimacy that unions have lost for accommodating to pro-rich agendas. The UFT talks a big game about its influence in City Hall and Albany. Instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, the MLC should demand that new contracts be funded, for example, by the city’s rainy day fund, its federal COVID relief fund, or the State’s stock transfer tax for which Wall Street gets rebated billions each year. The UFT should also support, rather than oppose, the NY Health Act whose implementation would remove a bargaining chip from the city. It’s a challenge, but the future of public education, and of municipal unionism, relies on achieving victories over austerity.

---

*Article Three, “Salaries and Benefits of Day School Teachers,” Heading G, “Health Insurance and Welfare Fund Benefits,” Section One, “Choice of Health Plans,” paragraph one of the UFT Teachers Contract reads: “The Board agrees to arrange for, and make available to each day school teacher, a choice of health and hospital insurance coverage from among designated plans and the Board agrees to pay the full cost of such coverage.”

 

 

Stop the UFT/MLC Shilling for Corporate Healthcare/Wealthcare/Mulgrewcare Ghouls Attempt to Gut only Public Option

Medicare Advantage communications toolkit:

• One-page handout: “The Problem with Medicare Advantage”
• PNHP statement: “CMS Should Terminate the Medicare Advantage Program”
• PowerPoint slides: Medicare Advantage 2022 update, developed by Dr. Ed Weisbart 
• Podcast: “More like Medicare Disadvantage, AMIRITE?” featuring Dr. Susan Rogers

 

Today is the first in-person/hybrid UFT Retired Teacher meeting where we will get yet another propaganda feast from UFT Welfare chief Jeff Sorkin with a gaggle of sycophants echoing the Unity Caucus line --- rising healthcare costs not due to profit making corporate ghouls but because retired UFT members go to the emergency room or to doctors too much. 

Below I'm posting the Physicians for a National Healthcare Program.

But first a must read by James Eterno who breaks things down brilliantly:

MLC UNIONS HAVE A FEW OPTIONS NOW ON HEALTHCARE

If you want to see why we are in a fix on healthcare, you have to very closely read the 2019-2021 and recurring thereafter Municipal Labor Committee (umbrella group of city unions) Agreement with the City on healthcare. 

The City and MLC met their targets on savings from this Agreement for the 2019-2021 fiscal years from the last round of collective bargaining. A big part of that was forcing new employees onto HIP HMO for their first year on the job even though this is a huge violation of the UFT Contract that guarantees UFT members a choice of premium-free plans.

The City and MLC were not content to stop there but further agreed to additional healthcare savings (givebacks). Now, we are told we have to replenish the Health Stabilization Fund, a fund started back in 1983 that the City draws from. The City is always going to demand further givebacks on healthcare....Read it all

Also check out Arthur Goldstein who finally turned against the healthcare changes: 

Unity is not thinking ahead. This plan is exactly why they won this year by the lowest percentage ever, and exactly why they could lose the next election. Having dealt extensively with the major opposition party, I don't trust them as far as I can throw them. It's beyond disappointing that this is all we can muster in such a potentially vibrant and effective union. We, the UFT, are poorly informed and not remotely as active as we could be....the entire Medicare Advantage plan was abysmally planned. It lacked vision, and MLC didn't bother at all to prepare for the totally predictable outcry that ensued. Some leaders have their heads planted firmly in the sand, and are still insisting that everything is perfectly fine. However, this is a disaster, no matter how much makeup they paint over it....

NYC Educator

The MLC Medicare Advantage Plan --- 

October 18, 2022 Dear colleague, You’ve no doubt seen the ads, so I don’t need to tell you that Medicare’s open enrollment period has officially begun. Every year, commercial health insurers are allowed to chip away at our most important public health program by offering Medicare Advantage (MA) plans to America’s seniors, and this year’s enrollment period comes at an especially crucial time in our fight against the privatization of Medicare. Projections indicate that by next year, more than half of Medicare beneficiaries will have enrolled in MA, putting the care of millions under the control of profit-seeking corporations and emboldening those who seek to hand our public programs to the private sector entirely.  At the same time, the Direct Contracting program continues its infiltration of Traditional Medicare, as participating entities have compromised the health plans of nearly 2 million beneficiaries, often without their full knowledge or consent. Starting January 1, 2023, this program will kick into overdrive as an expanded cohort of so-called “REACH entities” is given the opportunity to “manage” seniors’ care … in exchange for hefty profits. What’s wrong with this picture? Look no further than a recent bombshell New York Times article, which builds on PNHP’s expertise and research to expose the ugly truth: MA insurers are accused of exploiting the program to extract millions of dollars from taxpayers while denying care to their beneficiaries. Shockingly, several of these exact same companies have won approval to participate in the REACH program. Open enrollment is the perfect opportunity for PNHP members to highlight the greed of commercial health insurers and the danger of allowing them to further infiltrate Medicare. We’re encouraging everybody to write an op-ed or letter to the editor of your local newspaper describing the dangers of Medicare Advantage, the looming threat of REACH, and the urgent need for single-payer Medicare for All. Here are some resources to help you get started: Medicare Advantage communications toolkit: One-page handout: “The Problem with Medicare Advantage” PNHP statement: “CMS Should Terminate the Medicare Advantage Program” PowerPoint slides: Medicare Advantage 2022 update, developed by Dr. Ed Weisbart  Podcast: “More like Medicare Disadvantage, AMIRITE?” featuring Dr. Susan Rogers NYT article: “The Cash Monster Was Insatiable: How Insurers Exploited Medicare Advantage for Billions” Medicare’s open enrollment period only lasts through Dec. 7, so now is the time to write your op-ed or letter to the editor. Consider using the following talking points when writing about this complicated issue: Medicare Advantage is only able to offer low premiums and out-of-pocket caps by delaying or denying care on the back end, and by discouraging the sickest patients from enrolling. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to choose their health plan, but it restricts the much more crucial choice of doctor and hospital by using narrow provider networks. Commercial health insurers will never be satisfied with even their current, outrageous profits. Starting in January, the REACH program will allow many of these same companies to “manage” the care of seniors who have declined to participate in Medicare Advantage.  So long as we allow profit-seekers to control our health, they will deny us care, stick us with exorbitant costs, and keep the lion’s share for themselves. The only true solution to our country’s health care problem is Medicare for All, but if we allow corporations to take over Medicare, we will never see it achieved. If you have any questions or would like advice on your op-eds and letters, please reach out to our Communications Specialist, Gaurav Kalwani, at gaurav@pnhp.org. If writing isn’t your preferred method of engagement, consider using this toolkit as a basis for a presentation to colleagues, conversation with community members, or relationship-building exercise with local organizations. Any way we can get the message out will help move our cause forward. At this crucial juncture, we must make our voices heard and stop the capture of Medicare by corporate profiteers. We can only do this if we all speak up, and speak as one. Sincerely,

Susan Rogers, M.D. President

Physicians for a National Health Program 29 E Madison St Ste 1412 | Chicago, Illinois 60602 312-782-6006 | info@pnhp.org