Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins confirmed that eighteen months ago she retroactively removed from eligibility former city employees who had vested group health insurance benefits when they left the city’s employ. Interviewed May 30 Higgins said that for many years the city allowed former employees with ten or more years of service to utilize city health insurance upon retirement. Ultimately past employees who believed they had this coverage secured are now possibly faced with the grim reality of no health care at retirement.
In November 2005 Higgins blocked this long-standing benefit by creating a formal written policy. Revised in January 2006 Section 8 states:
Employees must have directly retired from active service with the City of Northampton or Northampton Public Schools.
All participation in the City’s contributory group health insurance must be continuous.
If a retiree cancels their enrollment or becomes ineligible for continued enrollment, they lose all eligibility to participate in the future–they cannot re-enroll at a future date regardless of qualifying event or life changes.
After checking with other communities Higgins determined that the long-standing practice was not a standard procedure. Although Higgins continued the unwritten practice during her mayoral tenure, she said that she was emulating sound business practices now by blocking the benefit because of the escalation in health insurance costs. However Wendy Foxmyn, former Assistant Administrator for the town of Wilbraham, said that she’s researched municipal group insurance policy extensively and concluded that there is no standard because policies differ from town to town. For instance Wilbraham allows former employees to join their group insurance plan at the time of retirement.
Higgins indicated that retired employees should have been notified of the change because the retirement board was supposed to have sent out notices and include an update in their newsletter. Current employees were to have been notified via a paycheck insert. Evidently no one alerted the media.
Higgins said she prefers to provide for people who remain employed by the city until they retire, not those who move on. In Northampton there are believed to be ten or more former employees who exercised a deferred option retirement.
When asked whether the city’s insurance advisory committee endorsed the policy she said no, that her decision falls outside of the committee’s statutory purview.
A former employee impacted by the new written policy questioned the legality of Higgins’ move to eliminate insurance eligibility retroactively and wondered if the new rule would apply to those who previously exercised this option. Higgins said she sought a legal opinion that states the city must treat everyone the same, but was not more specific.
Higgins’ gambit raises equity issues as well. According to Section 4 of the policy, certain elected officials are eligible for coverage regardless of the number of hours they work or their length of service. A first year school committee member working five hours a week for a $2,500 annual stipend can enter the insurance program and enjoy a benefit worth thousands of dollars more than the stipend.
During difficult fiscal times those in authority must make tough decisions and this is not an enviable task. By quietly breaking a long-standing promise concerning the health care of others while accepting a pay increase, Northampton’s supreme decision maker raises moral concerns regarding the equity of her leadership.
