Home 
Labor and Personnel Battle continues for health care plan design authority
Local officials and the MMA are continuing their long fight on Beacon Hill for substantial reform of the way cities and towns provide health insurance for employees.
The reasons are clear: municipal health insurance costs are rising rapidly, now consuming 12 percent of local budgets, compared to 8 percent just 10 years ago, according to MMA research. In most communities, the annual increase in health insurance costs outpaces the increase in property tax revenue.
To make matters worse, cities and towns operate under different rules than the state does in this arena. Municipalities are required to go through the collective bargaining process to make health insurance changes – such as co-pays, deductibles and tiered networks – while the state is not. Especially in the area of plan design, the requirement to get 100 percent union agreement before making any changes has left cities and towns woefully behind the private sector, state government, and even the federal government.
Local officials and the MMA are asking for the same authority that the state has to set co-pays and deductibles. The ability to do so would allow cities and towns to save between 4 percent and 6 percent on health insurance premiums, or roughly $100 million statewide. The MMA argues that this $100 million can be used to protect vital municipal services and jobs.
The MMA and local officials have expressed their strong support for a bill (H. 2509) that would give cities and towns the same power the state has to implement cost-saving changes in employee health insurance plans. Under the bill, municipalities would still negotiate any changes in the employee-employer premium share. Municipalities would be able to modernize health plan design outside of collective bargaining, with a guarantee that all municipal and school employees would still have health plans that are the same as or better than what state employees receive.
Labor unions continue to resist any changes to health insurance rules, but a wave of recent newspaper articles and editorials are taking issue with the union position and supporting reform.
In early March, The Boston Globe published a series of articles pointing out the intransigence of unions and their unwillingness to pay slightly more for health insurance in order to save jobs. The same week, The Boston Foundation published a 72-page report detailing how much could be saved if municipal employees had the same co-pays and deductibles as state employees.
Newspapers across Massachusetts have also editorialized in favor of giving cities and towns plan design authority outside of collective bargaining.
• Click here for links to these newspaper articles and editorials
The 4 percent local aid cut that’s now expected in the fiscal 2011 state budget can only mean another round of job losses for local government. The majority of these job losses could be avoided by giving local governments plan design authority.
Labor and Personnel Battle continues for health care plan design authority
Battle continues for health care plan design authority
Local officials and the MMA are continuing their long fight on Beacon Hill for substantial reform of the way cities and towns provide health insurance for employees.
The reasons are clear: municipal health insurance costs are rising rapidly, now consuming 12 percent of local budgets, compared to 8 percent just 10 years ago, according to MMA research. In most communities, the annual increase in health insurance costs outpaces the increase in property tax revenue.
To make matters worse, cities and towns operate under different rules than the state does in this arena. Municipalities are required to go through the collective bargaining process to make health insurance changes – such as co-pays, deductibles and tiered networks – while the state is not. Especially in the area of plan design, the requirement to get 100 percent union agreement before making any changes has left cities and towns woefully behind the private sector, state government, and even the federal government.
Local officials and the MMA are asking for the same authority that the state has to set co-pays and deductibles. The ability to do so would allow cities and towns to save between 4 percent and 6 percent on health insurance premiums, or roughly $100 million statewide. The MMA argues that this $100 million can be used to protect vital municipal services and jobs.
The MMA and local officials have expressed their strong support for a bill (H. 2509) that would give cities and towns the same power the state has to implement cost-saving changes in employee health insurance plans. Under the bill, municipalities would still negotiate any changes in the employee-employer premium share. Municipalities would be able to modernize health plan design outside of collective bargaining, with a guarantee that all municipal and school employees would still have health plans that are the same as or better than what state employees receive.
Labor unions continue to resist any changes to health insurance rules, but a wave of recent newspaper articles and editorials are taking issue with the union position and supporting reform.
In early March, The Boston Globe published a series of articles pointing out the intransigence of unions and their unwillingness to pay slightly more for health insurance in order to save jobs. The same week, The Boston Foundation published a 72-page report detailing how much could be saved if municipal employees had the same co-pays and deductibles as state employees.
Newspapers across Massachusetts have also editorialized in favor of giving cities and towns plan design authority outside of collective bargaining.
• Click here for links to these newspaper articles and editorials
The 4 percent local aid cut that’s now expected in the fiscal 2011 state budget can only mean another round of job losses for local government. The majority of these job losses could be avoided by giving local governments plan design authority.
Written by MMA Legislative Director David Baier
