The debate over whether or not Newton should discontinue running its own health insurance program for municipal and school employees in favor of this seemingly varied menu of health insurance coverage plans offered through Massachusetts Group Insurance Commission, dates back at least eight years to when Setti Warren was first running for mayor.
And it has resurfaced now as one of the few instances where Scott Lennon and Ruthanne Fuller sharply disagree.
Back in 2009, both Warren and his opponent State Rep. Ruth Balser were both open to moving city and school workers to the GIC if it provided significant budget savings, with Warren stressing that negotiating with unions on the campaign trail “should not happen.”
Here’s what the candidates had to say on NewTV…
Eight years later, city and school workers are still on a city-run insurance plan. But with union contract talks on the next mayor’s to-do list, talk about escalating health care costs have once again reignited a discussion about joining these cities, towns and school districts by switching to the GIC.
However, this time only Fuller has taken the position Warren and Balser took eight years ago, telling me last week: “I will not take the GIC off the table. It is possible that it will provide more options for our employees and a lower cost. “
In contrast Lennon says, if elected, the GIC would be off the table, saying he thinks he can get the unions (all of whom have endorsed Lennon) to keep costs down by “working together.”
Here’s the key part of our discussion…
Who’s right? Should the state GIC be off the table from collective bargaining as Lennon argues? Or is Fuller right when she says it needs to be an option that’s on the table during negotiations?
It must be an option, we need to have an open mind about it.
I don’t know all the details about the GIC, but the TAB asked the candidates directly in July & here are their answers. Full article: http://newton.wickedlocal.com/news/20170720/newton-mayoral-candidates-health-insurance-questionRuthanne Fuller
Scott’s July response certainly doesn’t sound like “off the table” to me…. Does anyone else see the difference or potential nod to the unions now?
SCOTT’s July Position
“For the past five years, Newton has analyzed what’s fiscally more responsible: buying insurance for its employees or participating in the GIC. So far buying insurance has been more responsible, with this additional advantage: we keep local oversight and control,” said Lennon. “If the fiscal analysis changes to favor GIC participation – and that’s why we’ll do the analysis each year, to see what’s better – I’ll approach all stakeholders involved – Newton’s employees, their bargaining representatives, and retirees – to discuss the financial impact and ensure we have insurance plans worthy of our employees and their families’ needs.”
RUTHANNE’s July Position
“I commit to taking the long view on offering quality health insurance options at costs that are sustainable for both the City and its employees,” she said. “We must attract and retain employees with an appealing package of salaries, benefits, work conditions and work culture. This includes high-quality health insurance with a variety of plans at the best possible cost. Working cooperatively with our employees and unions, I will examine all options, including the GIC, honestly and transparently to consider the impact on our employees, retirees and the City. Newton may continue to do best apart from rather than within the GIC.”
Both candidates are correct according to Maureen Lemieux Newton’s financial expert. So far Newton is better off financially with their current insurance program. The main reason is that we insure a relatively healthy population which helps keep costs lower.
Scott said that GIC is evaluated each year but each year it falls short of the current plan and he enumerated all of the weaknesses of GIC. Apparently it is not is a strong financial position. So , no I don’t see an inconsistency. July would have been the time is would be evaluated and by now in the calendar year that evaluation would have been completed.
The other issue with suggesting that Scott was pandering to the unions when he said GIC is off the table in Oct is that he already has their endorsements. If his intent was to pander, he would have called GIC “off the table” back in July.
Gloria – People think that the GIC is a panacea, but in truth, it’s on life support at this point. It’s hundreds of millions of dollars in debt.
Mike Zilles, president of the NTA who knows more about the GIC than just about anyone I know, posted an explanation of its problems yesterday, but it was at the end of a thread and made it to “Recent Comments” for about 5 minutes. I’ll be in touch with him to ask him to repost it. This has become an issue because Councilor Fuller changed her stance on the GIC this weekend and stated that it was a good insurance program. If it were a good program, employees would be clamoring to join it.
Not only is it bad for employees, it’s bad for the city. Being self-insured is one major benefit Newton offers employees that helps us remain on a level playing field in a highly competitive job market. It’s not 1990 when Newton was among the top paying communities in the Metropolitan Boston area. In addition, the new generation of educators often has tens of thousands of dollars of student debt and have to take the job that will allow them to keep their heads above water.
Hi everyone my name is Matthew Bressler and I am a recent grad who has just returned to Newton and found himself following the political scene. Full disclosure, I am a Ruthanne Fuller supporter and have been watching the threads on this blog for some time. I am still learning about many of the issues facing Newton this campaign, but after reading your comment Jane, I feel it is time to jump in.
@Jane from where are you getting your claim that Ruthanne changed her position on GIC? I did not hear anything of the sort in the clip that Greg provided. Moreover, it seems that you have a double standard regarding candidates changing positions. I noticed that you defended Scott’s complete flip regarding the Home Rule Proposal by the city council about having 8 Ward and 8 At Large councilors which took him 24 hours to correct. I’m not saying it isn’t the right thing to do, but I think you’re exhibiting a double standard when you say Ruthanne is changing her position because she’s not. Anyways, I felt strongly that should be addressed.
Guess I’m officially in V14 now! Looking forward to getting to know you all. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Matthew Welcome! Any chance you’re related to Larry?
I had a conversation last week with someone who lives in Newton but works for the Brookline Public Schools and said:
A list of participating municipalities is here.
And here’s a list of the plan options. As you’ll see these aren’t fly by night, brand X companies. Anyone who works in the private sector would be happy to be able to choose from these providers.
And let’s remember folks, the question is not “should the city switch?” It’s should the city consider switching? The union’s position — and now Scott Lennon’s too — is we don’t even want it on the table.
I don’t think any mayor should put any policy “Off the Table.” As an employee at a small business, I know that health insurance costs are high and only going higher. As I have said in the past, my biggest issue is that as a taxpayer I am footing the bill for the city employees to have better health insurance than I can get as a private citizen. This issue is going to continue to take up air space and budget space.
At age 26, many young adults are starting to pay for their own health insurance, and if they don’t work for a municipality or a large company, they don’t have access to amazing health insurance.
While I want the employees to have access to great insurance, I don’t want to pay for it, while my take home pay gets smaller and smaller due to the health insurance costs. I want the next mayor to look at every option on the table at that time (yearly) and make the best decision they can for the city (employees and taxpayers), and that discussion should happen yearly, as things change this quickly.
@NewtonMom: While I want the employees to have access to great insurance, I don’t want to pay for it, while my take home pay gets smaller and smaller due to the health insurance costs.
I think many in Newton talk out of both sides of their mouths. Lots of lip service about wanting great schools (which means great teachers) and concern about income inequality, but “I don’t want to pay for it”!!!??? I don’t have children in Newton schools, but I am happy to contribute to the schools because they make Newton a stronger community. I’d like to see more teachers, firefighter, police and other city workers be able to live in Newton because it increase diversity. Why waste time expending energy on workforce housing, and addressing income inequality if you don’t want to pay for it. Or does this just apply to healthcare.
@JaneFrantz “So, to return to Scott Lennon’s point: every year Newton does consider the GIC, and every year it is clear that Newton’s own self-insured plans are more well-managed and much less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of statewide and national politics.”
Thanks for confirming what I was sure I heard Scott say last Sunday.
I posted this as a comment on the Chamber of Commerce debate between Scott and Ruthanne.
I’m going to comment on the last issue, on whether Newton should consider joining the state run GIC or Government Insurance Commission.
Scott says that when Newton reviews the health insurance coverage it provides to employees, every year they do a comparative analysis of Newton’s self-insured coverage and costs to the coverage and costs of the GIC, and every year the decision to remain self-insured is clearly in the City’s best interest.
Ruthanne says that the GIC is good health insurance and that Newton should give it real consideration.
I’m perplexed, because I can tell you as co-chair of the Insurance Advisory Commission (with Tom Lopez, President of the Newton Firefighters) that we have regular conversations with the city’s Chief Financial Officer Maureen Limieux, and Scott has described exactly what happens: the GIC gets its due consideration every year, and comes up short in about every way. Here are just a few:
1. The GIC is a struggling institution that is on life support right now.
2. GIC costs are going through the roof. For years now, premiums have been going up more on average than have premiums for Newton’s plans. There were years they would have had to go up over 10% to cover increasing costs, but rather than raise premiums this much, the GIC has instead regularly increased co-pays and deductibles, cost-shifting the burden of ineffective cost-management onto employees.
3. The GIC has been forced to close to new members its two most popular plans, Harvard Independence and Tufts Navigator.
4. While these now closed plans might have worked for Newton employees, the plans that are now open and available would not. Instead, Newton employees would either have to choose more expensive indemnity plans, or use the GIC’s limited network plans, which would not include Newton Wellesley and most metro Boston hospital and provider groups.
4. Because Newton’s plans are well-managed, it is able to offer its employees health insurance with reasonable out of pocket maximums for both individuals and families. The GIC out-of-pocket maximums are five times ours for an individual, $5,000, and four times ours for a family ($10,000).
There is real human cost here. All of Newton’s employees would be forced to pay more for less, or find new doctors.
For some of my members, the financial costs could be devastating: Thirty to forty percent of the members the NTA represents, primarily aides, earn on average between $25,000 to $30,000 per year–gross, before they pay taxes and health insurance premiums. With these types of co-pays, anyone who became seriously ill or was injured, or had the same happen to a family member, would have to face a financial crisis on top of this medical crisis. Many of Newton’s retirees are on even more limited incomes. To raise their out–of-pocket expenses this much this fast would be simply unconscionable.
5. Finally, the Citizen’s Advisory Group report that Ruthanne Fuller repeatedly lauds specifies a group of educationally comparable communities to Newton: Belmont, Brookline, Concord-Carlisle, Lexington, Lincoln-Sudbury, Wayland, Wellesley, and Weston. It is important to note that educator salaries in Newton have fallen appreciably behind the salaries in almost all of these communities. The one area where Newton often (though not always) has a competitive advantage in hiring and retention is the reliable and well-managed health insurance it offers.
At the same time Newton salaries have declined relative to salaries in this benchmark group, it has also become much more competitive for anyone to hire and retain educators. New teachers enter the profession with a large student debt burden and hopes of someday owning a home and raising a family. Even if, all other things equal, they might choose Newton, all other things are not equal. Both new employees entering the profession and current employees making decisions about where to live and raise a family have to weigh dollars and cents. And Newton is losing ground in this arena. It simply does not make sense to give up this competitive advantage.
So, to return to Scott Lennon’s point: every year Newton does consider the GIC, and every year it is clear that Newton’s own self-insured plans are more well-managed and much less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of statewide and national politics. They remain a better choice both for Newton’s employees and for Newton’s bottom line.
Ruthanne presents the GIC as if it were serious option that she thinks should be considered to address Newton’s financial stability. But since it has been considered and rejected numerous times, it sounds to me like what she is really promising is a silver bullet. It is certainly not a serious proposal. Rather, it demonstrates one of two things: a real lack of understanding of the state of health insurance policy and practice in Massachusetts, and in Newton, at this time, or a willingness and desire to pick a fight with the unions to make herself stand out relative to Scott.
Or maybe it’s a little of each: bad policy and bad politics.
Mike Zilles’ comments about the GIC are generally accurate. I would add the caveat that the GIC is a great program alternative for municipalities that cannot self-insure. Municipalities do not negotiate with the GIC, and nor do they receive customized treatment in terms of plans and pricing. It’s like going to McDonald’s: Here what we have; this is your cost. Further, the GIC requires a time commitment (two years?). That’s good for GIC program stability, but for the municipality it means you’re stuck for the time being.
In contrast, Newton can self-insure, which means it can negotiate with insurers regarding what plans they want at what cost. Further, the City can track and manage costs throughout the year. And for the last eight years, the City has been able to offer City workers more at less cost to the City and employees, relative to the GIC. It’s a really smart strategy, which comes with the kicker of not unnecessarily irritating City workers who have expressed that they do not want to be in the GIC.
So, the argument for being open to the GIC now is… ?
Greg – Scott’s position has been consistent from the beginning: each year the city compares the GIC to the self -insured model and every year, the GIC comes up short. There’s a misconception in the city that the GIC is the answer to Newton’s healthcare problems. It is not.
As far as I’m concerned, a major concern for NPS is leveling the playing field in recruiting and retaining excellent educators in what is now a highly competitive job market with Newton’s comparable communities. We have one major financial advantage over comparable communities – that we are self-insured and aren’t at the mercy of state-run program over which we have no control.
Many young teachers have crushing student debt. When an excellent candidate has a choice between a district that has a better total compensation package, and one that doesn’t measure up, in this day and age, they have little choice but to go with the district that offers a better deal. Because we’re not keeping up in terms of salary, Newton needs to use every advantage available, financial or otherwise, to remain competitive with the communities we like to compare ourselves to.
FWIW, my family gets our medical coverage from the GIC through my wife’s employer, the Arlington Public Schools, and we are happy with it. Her premium co-pay is also lower than what Newton teachers pay. Of course, Arlington teachers don’t get paid as much as Newton teachers do, but Arlington schools still do consistently well on MCAS tests. In fact, my wife teaches 5th grade and, in 2016, Arlington’s 5th graders did better on the MCAS Composite Performance Index (91.0) than Newton’s 5th graders did (86.4).
Ted- Didn’t Newton students take PARCC in 2016 not MCAS?
@Newton Highlands Mom, I am just going by the Massachusetts Department of Education reports on MCAS results: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/mcas.aspx
Ted- I see. Newton kids took PARCC for English and math but the 5th graders who also take a science exam took MCAS just for science that year which is what is reflected on the site you linked to.
The GIC absolutely has to be reviewed on the table. We can’t allow what happened in the past, determine what we do in the future. It is absolutely irresponsible to dismiss any option that other cities love and could happen this city out in the future.
Of course, union buy in to the GIC would be, if the time approaches where we decide to go into the GIC.
Here’s a major problem with Scott’s position. During union negotiations the next Mayor may decide to use going on the GIC as a bargaining chip. If Scott has already decided not to go onto the GIC, he has shown his hand at the bargaining table. Not recommended.
@Newton Highlands Mom, without judging MCAS or PARCC, you might want to talk to teachers in the public schools. I live with one. I respect her opinion. MCAS may suck, but PARRC sucks more.
And, not for nothing, I am just presenting the facts. And the facts are stubborn things.
Just saw Scott Lennon’s ad in The Tab today where he points out his differences:
“I am the only candidate who has continuously held a full-time job for the last twenty years.”
As a SAHM who has contributed to my community in some significant volunteer roles I found this backhanded statement offensive. I was undecided but that statement has secured my vote for Ruthanne.
I’ve been a sometime SAHM and I’d be foolish to say that any of that amounted to professional experience. Being a SAHM has its rewards and I am proud of the volunteer work I had the chance to do, but I don’t categorize it as anything close to the full-time jobs I’ve held. I thought that when Fuller said that being a SAHM taught her more about management than her MBA program was silly. Imagine saying that at a job interview.
I don’t agree with Lennon’s campaign using that phrasing in the ad, but I also think that Fuller has been a little elusive about her career. Especially when she touts her decades of experience that can’t quite be followed up on.
@Jane: Back in 2009, the candidate you enthusiastically worked for (Setti Warren) as well as his opponent (Rep. Balser) both argued the same position that Fuller has today (see both videos above), which is that the GIC should be on the table during contract negotiations. Many school committee candidates (just not the two endorsed by your union) have argued the same thing.
Meanwhile, we’re hearing from Councilor Hess-Mahan and others, that the GIC has many happy policy holders.
Why is Setti Warren’s position from eight years ago, not still the right one today?
Greetings,
I am a retired Newton teacher of thirty-two years who cherished my career. I valued my students, parents, colleagues, aides, secretaries, custodians, and the community’s support of teachers. Increasingly, teaching has presented challenging demands; one only need read the news to understand the complexities of being an effective teacher in 2017!
Newton has maintained a top quality school system because they have supported their teachers!
I read that there is a proposal that the city would move the health insurance to the “State Plan'” for all Newton employees. We all realize the our First Responders are keeping us safe from harm’s way. They are consummate professionals and put their own lives at risk. I advocate for keeping the current health care system in place for ALL Newton employees. (If new teachers are shopping around for a school system, they will naturally gravitate toward a city that provides their own health care.) I might also point out that for decades, the stellar reputation of Newton as one of the safest cities in the country(due to its outstanding “First Responders”, and its excellent school system) have drawn people to move to Newton for the reasons I have cited plus its proximity to Boston.
Mayor Setti Warren, a former student of mine presented the idea that Newton insure its own employees ( seven years ago!)
Best Regards,
susan rotello friedman
Susan,
Thanks for your time as a teacher. I went to South, so I never had you, but I am sure you were wonderful.
The question on this thread wasn’t whether the city should move to the GIC, as I understand the question it was whether Scott Lennon, as a candidate and possible future Mayor of Newton, should take the idea off the table. The answer is unequivocally no.
Mike Zilles and Tom Lopez (both of whom I think do a wonderful job)are thinking about whats best for the city employees. If Scott becomes Mayor, he would have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers. Taking the GIC off the table could cost the city millions of dollars (I don’t think I’m overstating that since our budget is probably roughly 400 mil and salaries are 80% or 320 mil, so a million or two is less than 1% of the budget). He could have gotten concessions for that, but now the city employee unions are not afraid of that. Even if he flips his position right now the unions wont be nervous about going into the GIC because they will know he doesn’t mean it. If you ask me, it’s a pretty big mistake. If he wins, I hope he is a quick learner.