On Wednesday, July 25, Candidate for City Councilor At- Large Grace C. Ross held a press conference to address the
Section 18 issue. Having spoken with numerous advocates in the field, Grace Ross presented information critical to the City
Council’s impending decision of whether or how to transfer Worcester City retirees onto Medicare. She presented an option for
both protecting the retirees financially and saving the City money. Her remarks follow:

Hi, I am here today to say that this decision on Section 18 represents a huge opportunity for the City to do the right thing – This could be a win-win-win all around.

The most basic principles of a sound City government include long term planning, accessing all monies available to the City from state and federal sources (as an integrated web), balancing the needs of all our residents and creating the most effective budget possible.

The pledge I am prepared to take for City Council is to protect the people of Worcester. And while I understand the temptation looking at the potential federal monies to bail out the city coffers through transferring the eligible retirees from the city health plan to medicare, the oath of City Councilors is to all the people of this city, to our well-being, not to the bottom line of the city budget. And certainly not to the city budget in isolation. For the city budget does not exist in isolation, with revenues down from our standard tax sources – it is merely a reminder that the City thrives when the people thrive – it cannot thrive alone.

No decision that makes it hard or impossible for the possibly hundreds of retirees to make ends meet is good for the city as a whole nor the city budget. If we cut to the bare bones money that people would otherwise spend locally to survive, then we put a further drain on the locally economy - the economic base for our taxes. So making it so that retirees are not able to pay heat or housing or food or medical costs, is not only immoral, it is also bad long-term fiscal policy. Period.

But the reality is the city can save large amounts of money through Section 18, support our retirees, bring more money into the city and help balance the budget long term.

First, the City has a bully pulpit and while many, many of those eligible for assistance with the premiums for medicare and related medicare expenses (and in fact the premiums for the City’s insurance), have not drawn down money for the state – those most in need are in fact eligible to have their premiums paid through the state - and in fact have been eligible. And the city I believe has (and has had) an opportunity and a responsibility in its commitment to the well-being of its residents to inform our seniors that many for those most in need can and could have gotten assistance in paying these costs.

Some of the sitting City Councilors have said that we cannot pass Section 18, requiring retirees to move from the City health insurance to Medicare unless we hold the retirees harmless from increased costs – especially those who can least afford it. They are right for all the reasons I just pointed out.

It has been proposed that the city should provide sliding scale assistance in the payment of premiums. Given people’s many sources of income, that would create its own bureaucracy and looking at housing authorities, we know that can equal many positions. In addition, it has been suggested that not only this set of retirees but others who previously moved to Medicare are facing rising Medicare costs that are jeopardizing their future – and that any policy to hold retirees harmless should look at all retirees not just those effected by this Section 18 decision. Some have said that would be hopelessly expensive and make the benefits of Section 18 moot. This last argument is simply false

If the City will inform all retirees and perhaps broadly help reach all seniors in Worcester, we can alleviate serious financial burdens from many of those least able to pay by letting them know that their Medicare premiums and we believe the city’s insurance premiums) are covered by the state if they are at %100 of poverty. That if they pass an asset test, they are covered at 135% of the poverty level. That they can get much reduced prescription rates. And that hospital, neighborhood health center and doctors’ copays and co-insurance costs are covered for those up to 200% of the poverty level.

The sliding scale is already there provided by the state and federal programs IF people know to apply for them. The in-take and assessment process is already provided through the state. There are some limitations for those who may not have paid forty quarters to Social Security or may have assets that disqualify them. But then this gets EASY for the City and much of the critical costs are covered if people know to apply for them.

The city council can decide to hold people harmless which given the city estimates and what I have heard from some unions, looks like the city commits to pay 75% of part B of Medicare. To get that money, retirees have to first attempt to get state and federal payment for their various Medicare expenses. Those who need the most assistance will overwhelmingly be covered by the state. Those that are not then come back to the city, all in-take information already accomplished and the city covers those who are not covered elsewhere.

Estimates have run at about $400 to $600 K to hold retirees harmless – after those eligible accessing state and federal assistance, this figure will be MUCH lower. And many of those struggling already may get assistance they have not known they are eligible for – helping them and our local economy. The city can see benefits approaching the 3.2 million estimate – while honoring the work of our retirees, protecting them into the future, drawing down state and federal dollars into our community as many of the present city councilors have been calling for, help with long-term financial health not just of the city budget but of the people of this City.

One more thing, the issue has been raised about how quickly section 18 can realistically be implemented because of the open enrollment period being set normally for Jan- March and then enrollees benefits not starting until July 1st.

The city council needs to take a deep breath and implement this properly as a win-win-win. This was first presented as I recall as a possibility in the city Manager’s presentation in March 27th. Real discussion did not even begin till the end of May. And a vote assuming this could be implemented was made on June 5th. Rushton and I and a couple of others it seems just figured out recently that the regular enrollment window might make this impossible to implement for the next fiscal year. The city Manager says he knew about this timing problem. Hopefully in the future he won’t let the City Council make a vote dependent upon a process that may not be possible to implement within the assumed time frame.

To me, this all means, that the city council really needs to get the research done on this properly. All of what I am sharing today only took me a few hours of research – admittedly, I have networks at all levels across the state and I listen to every suggestion made – but however the information is gotten, no decision based on assumptions (which are incomplete or incorrect) should be made.

The research should be completed now, and the decision - which is just for all concerned – made as soon as possible. Because, even if it cannot be implemented this fiscal year because it required advanced planning, we need to start implementation in a timely way because that is the kind of planning required of good government – and the kind of planning our retirees, all our residents and our city budget need and deserve.