Past MEMOS

Past Memos

memo

TO: Delegates and Stewards

DATE: August 5, 2002

SUBJ: The Gubernatorial Endorsement

If you have not already read or heard a media report, the PEF Executive Board voted 72-30 to approve the Statewide PAC recommendation to endorse Governor Pataki for reelection. This vote followed personal appearances by both Governor Pataki and Comptroller McCall before the Executive Board.

The overwhelming majority of the Executive Board believed that the Governor, who has a 2-1 lead in the polls over Mr. McCall and $15 million more in campaign funds, was best positioned to actually deliver on his pledge to use all means to avoid layoffs next year.

The Governor also acknowledged that PEF members were treated badly when they had their sick leave reduced from 13 to 10 days in 1982 and GOER has made a commitment that this matter will be resolved early in the next round of negotiations.

While some Board members acknowledged that endorsing the Governor was difficult because of PEF’s positive relationship with Carl McCall around pension issues, the Board acknowledged that his campaign was stalled and they needed to put the members’ job security and contract gains ahead of political loyalty. Many others argued that Governor Pataki deserved PEF’s endorsement because of his leadership preventing layoffs, signing retirement legislation and his job security pledge.



Roger E. Benson

cc: PEF Staff
 

memo

TO: Stewards and Delegates

DATE: August 5, 2002

SUBJ: Contract Negotiations: Agreement on Sick Leave Parity

I am pleased to report that after discussions with GOER, we have entered into a handshake agreement that early in the next round of contract negotiations, the State will extend to PEF 13 days of sick leave to all full-time PS&T unit members. This will address the longstanding inequity of our members hired after April 1, 1982 who only earn 10 days of sick leave.

In virtually every survey conducted by PEF in the past decade, this issue has always been near the top of our members’ concerns. They rightfully point to workers in the same title performing exactly the same work and receiving different sick leave benefits. This inequity has been raised in every contract negotiations since 1985 and has never been resolved because the State has always demanded PEF give back the second longevity step which was extended in 1982. This handshake agreement will not involve any trade off from PEF, will be implemented immediately upon sign off and should occur within the first several months of contract negotiations.

The discussions that lead to this agreement began early this year and were finally concluded after the Legislature adjourned and GOER could focus on this matter. While I am extremely aware that handshake agreements are only as good as the trust between the parties, the fact that the Governor recognized this inequity during his meeting with the PEF Executive Board strengthens my belief that we will be able to reduce this agreement to writing soon and correct this twenty year inequity.

The efforts of our prior contract team and PEF staff on this issue set the stage for allowing this very positive development and I want to publicly acknowledge their contribution. They deserve our appreciation and gratitude.




Roger E. Benson


cc: George Madison, Director, GOER
1999-2003 PEF Contract Team
 

memo

TO: Region 12 PEF Leadership

FROM: Lorraine Simpkins, Health Benefits Specialist

DATE: July 29, 2002

RE: UPDATE – Long Island Health Network (LIHN) Hospitals


Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) began sending the attached letter (PDF format) to Empire Plan enrollees on Friday, 7/26. It will take them several days to send out all of the letters.

The letter is being sent at the request of the NYS Department of Civil Service, and is intended to discourage Empire Plan enrollees from continuing to use the LIHN hospitals after they become non-par. For our members who use one of the LIHN hospitals, this letter is likely to add to their anxiety and concerns.

As I indicated in my 7/17/02 memo, the LIHN hospitals may change their billing procedures. In the letter being sent to Empire Plan enrollees, Empire BCBS lists five possible changes that may occur. One of these changes is that patients might be refused treatment for non-emergency services or elective treatment. According to Empire BCBS, “threats” such as this one have been made by the hospital network during the rate negotiation process.

It’s important to keep in mind that the negotiations between Empire BCBS and LIHN have become very contentious. Each of them is attempting to sway public opinion in their favor. Each of them is using whatever leverage they have to extract concessions from the other side. The Empire BCBS letter to Empire Plan enrollees is just another “step” in the negotiation process.

We are continuing to monitor this situation very closely and will continue to update you as more information becomes available.



cc: Executive Board
Council Leaders
PEF Staff
 

memo

URGENT UPDATE

TO: Region 12 PEF Leadership

FROM: Lorraine Simpkins, Health Benefits Specialist

DATE: July 17, 2002

RE: UPDATE - Long Island Health Network (LIHN) Hospitals
Empire Plan Enrollees Will See Change In Billing Procedures

We have no information on the current status of the rate negotiations between Empire BCBS and the LIHN hospitals other than that the two sides last met on Tuesday, July 16th. The dispute has become more public with both the hospital network and Empire BCBS taking out ads in Newsday. The ads were in the July 17th and July 18th issues. Copies are attached for your reference.

We have received some additional information regarding the impact on our members if this hospital network goes through with its threat to stop accepting Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS). This new information makes it clear that the impact on Empire Plan enrollees may be much greater than previously thought. While we do not want to unnecessarily alarm our members, we consider it important to keep everyone fully informed of the potential changes that may occur. As more information becomes available, we will pass it along to you as quickly as possible.

Impact on Empire Plan Enrollees:

Empire BCBS has notified the hospitals that they will no longer reimburse the LIHN hospitals directly. Instead, payment for covered services will be sent to the enrollee. It will become the enrollee’s responsibility to pay the hospital.

Since non-participating providers are not required to submit claims to Empire BCBS, patients receiving services at one of the LIHN hospitals may be billed directly and have to submit a claim for reimbursement to Empire BCBS. We do not know if any of the LIHN hospitals intend to change their billing procedures, but it is a possibility.

Put simply, responsibility for submitting the bill to Empire BCBS may shift from the hospital to the enrollee. Responsibility for paying the hospital will shift from Empire BCBS to the enrollee.

This means that the LIHN hospitals can immediately seek payment from the enrollee. These hospitals may require partial or full payment before performing services, at the time of service, or within 30 days of the date of service. In other words, it’s possible that an enrollee will be asked to pay for services before receiving his or her reimbursement from Empire BCBS. If asked to pay upfront, an enrollee unable to pay may have to use one of the other Long Island hospitals still accepting Empire BCBS.

Impact on BlueChoice HMO Enrollees:

We have confirmed that there are 21 members enrolled in the downstate Empire BCBS BlueChoice HMO option. Only one (1) member, however, resides on Long Island. Empire BCBS will be notifying these members that LIHN will no longer be participating in the HMO’s network and how this change affects them.



cc: Executive Board
Council Leaders
PEF Staff

 

memo

TO: Region 12 PEF Leadership
FROM: Lorraine Simpkins, Health Benefits Specialist
DATE: July 10, 2002
RE: 11-hospital Long Island Health Network


The 11-hospital Long Island Health Network announced yesterday that it will stop accepting Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield insurance effective August 11th. A copy of the article appearing on the Newsday web site is attached. (Click on http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-limedi0709.story for a copy of the article.)

It is important that we address any concerns our members may have regarding this announcement. I have been in contact with both the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations and Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS), and am monitoring this situation very carefully. The information in this memo should enable you to address most of the concerns our members may have.

Keep in mind that Empire BCBS and the Long Island Health Network are still negotiating. The hospital network’s decision to go public is clearly an attempt to gain leverage with Empire BCBS. It’s quite possible that the two parties will reach an agreement before August 11th.

As more information becomes available, we will pass it along to you as quickly as possible.

Impact on Empire Plan Enrollees:

For members enrolled in the Empire Plan, the fact that these hospitals will no longer be participating with Empire BCBS will have no impact on their benefits. The Empire Plan level of benefits is the same whether the enrollee uses a par or a non-par hospital. In other words, members can continue to use these hospitals and have either no out-of-pocket cost or a small copayment for covered services.

Impact on BlueChoice HMO Enrollees:

For members enrolled in the Empire BCBS BlueChoice HMO, the impact will be much greater. Fortunately, we have very few members enrolled in this option. We are attempting to confirm the current number of enrollees, but it was only fourteen (14) in January 2002. Since this HMO services other downstate counties in addition to Nassau and Suffolk counties, it may be that the number of members affected is much smaller.

Once these hospitals no longer accept Empire BCBS, this HMO will not provide benefits for services received at these hospitals except for emergency medical care. This HMO’s members will have to use one of the other hospitals that accept Empire BCBS.

In addition to changing hospitals, this HMO’s members may also have to change one or more of their physicians. The HMO requires participating physicians to have admitting privileges at an Empire BCBS participating hospital. Therefore, physicians who only have admitting privileges at one of the 11-hospitals in the Long Island Health Network will be terminated.

Prior to August 11th, Empire BCBS will send letters to the HMO’s members who have used either one of the 11 hospitals or one of the physicians being terminated from the HMO. These letters will notify the HMO member that the provider is no longer participating and the procedures for transitioning their care to other providers.


cc: Executive Board
Council Leaders
PEF Staff
 

memo

TO: Executive Board
Council Leaders

DATE: May 24, 2002

SUBJ: Early Retirement Update
Frequently Asked Questions and Answers

Earlier this week, the Director of State Operations James Natoli sent a memo to all agency heads regarding the above and described the next steps that need to be taken. While we do not have an official copy of that memo, we have had an opportunity to review an “unofficial” version.

The descriptive material under the “Targeted Retirement Incentive” is unremarkable with one important exception. In the final bullet, Mr. Natoli indicates “to achieve permanent work force savings, the Task Force [on State Work Force Management and Employee Deployment] anticipates eliminating the positions vacated through the retirement program.” This, of course, appears to be at variance with the information we distributed last week.

A clarification is necessary: As Brian Curran, PEF’s Legislative Director, indicated “One major difference from prior ERI bills is that the language requiring that targeted positions be abolished will be dropped from this bill.” This is not at variance with Mr. Natoli’s memo because, while the legislation does not require that items be abolished, this does not mean the State loses its authority in their discretion to abolish an item. Or stated another way, the State always retains the authority to abolish an item at any time, even if they are not required to abolish it.

In clarification discussions with the Second Floor, PEF has been assured that the language in Mr. Natoli’s memo only reserves the right to abolish the item but does not require that the item be abolished. It appears that this will be addressed on a case by case basis.

Agencies have been asked to take the next steps toward implementation of both the targeted retirement incentive and the 25/55--no penalty incentive. These next steps are:

We expect that these retirement incentives will remain an evolving issue and, of course, will share additional information as it becomes available. Enclosed are FAQ’s regarding the two incentive programs based on the most current information available. Please also refer members to the PEF website (www.pef.org) for additional retirement incentive information.

Roger E. Benson

cc: PEF Staff

memo

TO: PRESIDENT ROGER E. BENSON

FROM: BRIAN CURRAN

DATE: 5/16/02

RE: EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE & 25/55 BILL


This is the outline of the Early Retirement Incentive bill passed today and agreed to by the Legislature and Governor (S.7431/ A.11420).

PART A- Early Retirement Incentive (ERI).

This will be similar to the incentives authorized in other recent years. It applies to members in all pension tiers. It will be targeted to apply only in agencies and positions designated by the Director of State Operations due to budget or workforce reductions. Employees who are targeted will receive one month of additional pension credit for each year of service up to a maximum of 36 months added credit. Eligibility is the same as prior years (minimum age 50 with 10 years of service). The same penalties apply as in prior ERI bills. Penalties are as follows: Tier 2, 3 and 4 members between ages 55 and 62 with less than 30 years of service will have the normal penalties that apply under current law. Members in all tiers who are between ages 50 and 55 will have a penalty of 5% for each year below age 55. The ERI will be authorized throughout the current State fiscal year (2002-03) but management will be able to offer it during a window period of 30 to 90 days during that year at their discretion. The window period will be established by the Director of State Operations. One major difference from prior ERI bills is that the language requiring that targeted positions be abolished will be dropped from this bill. Instead the bill simply requires an employer to file a report showing that the incentive will produce savings.

PART B- 25/55 “Window.”

The bill also includes a temporary opportunity for members in Tiers 2, 3 or 4 who are at least 55 years old and have 25 years of service to retire without penalties. This part is not applicable to Tier 1 because they can already retire at age 55 with no penalties, regardless of their years of service. For Tier 2, 3 and 4 members this elimination of penalties can be quite significant because under present law a member in those tiers who retires at age 55 may face penalties of up to 27%.


Here are some key provisions of the 25/55 part of the bill:

1. The 25/55 retirement will be available only for a 90-day “window” period. We do not yet know when that window will be for State workers. The window will be established by the Director of State Operations. If he does not establish the window earlier, then the window will be January 1, 2003 through March 31, 2003. However, it is likely that the State will choose to open the window at an earlier date during 2002. PEF will provide information about the window period through the PEF website as soon as the period is established.

2. The 25/55 retirement is not targeted. It will be available to all members who qualify by age and years of service, at the member’s option.

3. There will be a defined exception to the 25/55 provision that allows an employer to deny participation to employees in positions that are deemed by the employer to be “critical” to public health or safety. For the State, this decision is to be made by the Director of State Operations. This exception is expected to be applied narrowly, and there is a provision allowing for a challenge in court if an individual is denied for reasons that are arbitrary and capricious.

4. There is a provision saying that a member cannot get both the targeted ERI and the 25/55 retirement, so anyone who is eligible for both will have to make a choice.
 

memo

TO: Regional Offices

DATE: May 15, 2002

SUBJ: Early Retirement Incentive

Please find attached a status report that I asked Brian Curran to prepare this morning on the retirement incentive legislation. Last night there were final negotiations with the AFL-CIO and PEF regarding this legislation. The sticking point was the ability of management to exempt employees critical to public health or safety from the 25/55 provision. We finally agreed to this language with the understanding that no PEF titles are anticipated to be exempted at this time. Also added to the legislation is a provision allowing for an Article 78 court challenge if an individual is denied the 25/55 opportunity for reasons we believe are arbitrary and capricious.

As Brian Curran indicated, the actual language has not yet been released in bill form. As soon as we receive it, we will forward it to the Regional Offices. This bill broke significant new ground in terms of how retirement incentives are handled by the State and combined with the elimination of abolishing positions from the ERI legislation, I am not unhappy about how this turned out. Of course, it is not perfect, but then most negotiated settlements seldom are.

Please share this information with the Executive Board members and Council Leaders in your Region. This information is available here.

Roger E. Benson

Attachment

cc: Statewide Officers & Trustees
PEF Staff