Agenda - Council - 06/23/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

II. 14ANDATORY MEDICARE COVERAGE FOR ALL CITY (AND STATE) EMPLOYEES PROPOSED TO PAY FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS IN CATASTROPHIC HEALTH INSURANCE LEGISLATION Cities need to let Senators Durenberger and Boschwitz know the consequences of proposals under consideration to require cities to provide medicare coverage for all city employees in order to provide revenues to pay for the cost of prescription drugs under provisions of catastrophic health insurance legislation. The Senate Finance Committee has approved catastrophic health insurance legislation (S. 1127) that would aid those in need to obtain health care for long-term costly illness or injury. In order to fund costs of such expanded health care coverage, Senator Heinz (R-PA) proposed requiring that all state and local employees be covered by Medicare. Although Heinz agreed to table consideration of the financing amendment in committee, he announced that he will offer the same amendment to the legislation when it reaches the Senate floor. It is important for cities to consider the impact on local finances of provisions that would require the city to provide Medicare coverage for all employees (including elected officials as well as part-time and seasonal employees - and election judges). Many cities have responded to previous League survey requests for information on budget implications of such proposals. That information is being used to explain local financing issues to members of Congress. In addition, cities need to respond immediately to this latest proposal to extend Medicare coverage requirements to remaining employees not yet covered (largely paid police and fire personnel). Please write and/ or call Senators Boschwitz and Durenberger to relay such information and to urge them to oppose the imposition of such mandates. Be sure to point out that recent state tax legislation imposed very restrictive levy limits on all cities. Cities, therefore, have no additional levy authority available to cover these added costs. Further, the proposed proposed mandate may take effect during the current budget year, meaning that cities would have to pay additional Medicare premiums not not covered by city budget revenues. It is difficult for cities to be heard on local government financing concerns when funding for health .care-needs is offered as the policy objective. Nevertheless, it is unreasonable to require cities, with little revenue-raising flexibility or alternative revenue sources, to bear the burden of increased local costs for delvery of necessary basic services in order to provide federal funding of a portion of the national catastrophic health insurance program. It is important to emphasize to members of Congress that simply shifting the cost for such expanded health care to local government is not equitable or sound public policy. Under such mandates, funding of such comprehensive and costly health care service is being paid for by local property taxpayers who are being asked to pay more for city services because of a federal mandate unrelated to locally determined priorities or needs.