Healthcare Negotiations are Stalled?

For years now, we’ve received constant reports from Unity-elected UFT leadership that changes are coming to in-service healthcare. Those changes, though always framed positively by Mulgrew et al, were predominately meant for the purpose of cost-savings – and not the kind that members would benefit from. ‘We,’ by which I mean Mulgrew (since UFT members or delegates were never consulted or given a chance to vote), had sought to reduce the cost of our healthcare by a whopping 10%. UFT members, who had already seen dramatic increases in copays (e.g. $100 to go to CityMD, which had been just $15 a few years earlier) were now being informed that the more massive change was going to be a replacement of all or part of our insurance plan via a negotiated acquisition process: either by Aetna or by a version of Emblem that partners with UnitedHealthcare (rather than Anthem, which currently manages our hospital coverage).

Things were looking imminent, when suddenly negotiations stalled. Some wondered if it had to do with lawsuits, including one that was sealed from view. But for now, all we’re getting is this (per the Oct. 17 UFT Chapter Leader Update):

The big news here of course is that we likely won’t lose GHI-CBP as soon as we thought. However, it’s also not because we aren’t going to lose it period. Negotiations are simply stalled. The “turmoil at City Hall” seems a vague, and frankly unlikely, reason for the stalled negotiations, but rather than speculate on the ‘why,’ it’s probably more useful to think about what this means: We are still on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of savings. How will we close that debt to the City – and what happens if we don’t? (More prohibitive copays? Premiums, as has been threatened time and time again? Some ‘bill’ that the union(s) will have to pay in some other fashion?) Clues to what might happen were given to us in an arbitrator’s recommendation back in 2022. None of it is pretty.

Again, the second highlight here is that negotiations are stalled, but not over. We have few clues here as to who might be selected in the end (some version of EmblemHealth vs. Aetna), although one clue seems to suggest that ‘we’ have a preference for Aetna. That clue is that ‘we’ are apparently pushing for ‘stronger…out-of-state networks,’ which implies looking more at Aetna, an out of-state company with a global reach, over EmblemHealth, a predominately NYC-based nonprofit that specializes largely in plans that service members in the New York City metropolitan area. But, then again, we don’t know for sure what the partnership between EmblemHealth and UnitedHealthcare would be – might it go beyond Anthem’s simple hospital partnership and extend to doctors as well? With negotiations stalled, we’ll have to wait and see. And of course, UFT is only one player here, albeit one with a heavily weighted role in decision-making. That is to say that, regardless of who Mulgrew prefers, the rest of the MLC could perhaps outvote him and go in another direction.

One thing is for sure – with MAP and in-service ‘cost savings plans’ currently off the table—for the time being, anyways—members may think they can rest easily. But with a massive debt due, we shouldn’t; and we certainly can’t rest for long.