
New York Boomers Lose Medicare Battle
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
New York's highest court has rejected a legal challenge by retired city workers seeking to block a plan to move them from traditional Medicare - with city-funded supplemental coverage - to private Medicare Advantage plans.
Newsweek has contacted the New York City Law Department for comment via email.
Why It Matters
New York City is required by law to provide health insurance coverage for retirees formerly employed by the city. The roots of the policy go back to 2021, when city officials and leaders of major public employee unions agreed to cut $600 million annually from the city's healthcare spending.
The agreed-upon solution was to shift roughly 250,000 retirees and their dependents to a Medicare Advantage plan - an alternative to traditional Medicare that typically offers lower premiums.
At the time, City Hall, then under the helm of former New York Mayor Bill De Blasio, argued in favour of the change because of the annual savings it would generate. The current Mayor Eric Adams has since embraced the idea.
But critics have said the plan would mean more out-of-pocket costs for former New York government employees.
What To Know
In a unanimous decision issued Wednesday, June 18, Judge Shirley Troutman of the State of New York Court of Appeals said the retirees failed to provide adequate evidence that the shift would reduce their health benefits. The court also found no legally binding agreement ensuring the city would maintain their existing coverage.
Stock image/file photo: Medicare enrollment form.
Stock image/file photo: Medicare enrollment form.
GETTY
"If forced into a Medicare Advantage plan, retirees will lose access to many of the doctors they depend on for life-saving treatment and will routinely be denied coverage for medical care. That is because, unlike traditional Medicare (a publicly run program), private Medicare Advantage plans limit access to medical providers and medical care in order to maximize profits," the Organization of Public Service Retirees said in a statement following the decision.
Medicare Advantage plans are private insurance options approved by Medicare. They replace traditional Medicare Parts A and B, covering hospital and outpatient care — except hospice. Most also include prescription drug coverage (Part D).
Insurance companies offering these plans get a set payment from Medicare for each person enrolled. They also charge patients out-of-pocket costs and often require them to use doctors in their network or get referrals to see specialists.
What People Are Saying
The Council of the City of New York Common Sense Council said in a statement: "While we are extremely disappointed with the Court of Appeals decision today, it only strengthens our resolve to fight for our municipal retirees and ensure they are provided the supplemental Medicare insurance they were promised. We encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting Intro 1096, which would prevent this administration and any future administration from taking away this fundamental right and forcing retirees into a lesser health insurance plan."
Marianne Pizzitola, president of the NYC Organization of Public Service
Retirees, said in a press release: "On behalf of 250,000 retirees, we call on the City Council and the next mayor to prevent us from being forced into a privatized Medicare Advantage plan and to let us continue receiving the health insurance we were promised and desperately need: traditional Medicare plus a supplemental plan."
Justin Brannan, New York City Council Finance Committee Chair and Democratic candidate for city comptroller, said on X: "The City of New York should never, ever be screwing over retirees – and neither should the courts. Nobody will ever want to work for New York City again. Zero trust. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam & betrayal. Enough! City Hall clearly doesn't care about retirees."
What Happens Next
While the Court of Appeals dismissed the retirees' primary claims, it sent the case back to a lower court to resolve remaining legal issues.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
NYC Mayor Adams drops plans to change Medicare benefits for retired city employees
New York City Mayor Eric Adams says the city will no longer move forward with a Bill de Blasio-era plan he previously supported. The plan would've impacted about 250,000 retired municipal workers. Retirees had said the plan would've limited their access to higher cost providers. "We have heard concerns from retirees about these potential changes at numerous older adult town halls and public events, and our administration remains focused on ensuring that New York City remains an affordable place to live. Thankfully, we have found other ways to address health care costs while providing quality health care coverage for our city's workers, and we have decided not to move forward with the Medicare Advantage plan at this time," Adams said. "We have informed union leadership that we are pursuing other avenues for improving health care for city workers that will provide even better outcomes, and we look forward to continuing to work with our partners on the best path forward." Adams had previously said the switch would save taxpayers $600 million a year. The controversial move had prompted numerous rallies and demonstrations at City Hall. "While I am glad the retirees will keep their healthcare, we never should have reached this point. Mayor Adams should never have pursued the Medicare Advantage deal in the first place. The retirees have struggled with the fear and uncertainty that their healthcare could be taken away at any time. Workers who have served our city should always have had the guarantee of the health insurance they were promised," City Councilmember Keith Powers said.


Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Transgender Veterans Barred From Fertility Treatment Under New Rules
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Transgender veterans eligible for Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) health benefits will no longer receive financial coverage for egg- and sperm-freezing fertility treatments, new guidance shows. According to a leaked email from a person at the VA's Women Veterans Health Care department, transgender veterans preparing for gender dysphoria treatment and seeking cryopreservation—the process in which eggs or sperm (gametes) are frozen and stored to be thawed for later use—will no longer see the costs of this process covered by the department. Treatment for gender dysphoria or gender identity disorder can affect an individual's ovaries or testes and thus fertility. Individuals sometimes freeze their eggs to mitigate against this prior to treatment. The email indicates a shift from previous policy. As it stands, everyone eligible for VA health care benefits (i.e. those who previously served in the military, navy or air service) can access these fertility preservation treatments, including transgender veterans, according to a Women Veterans Health Care document, published in October 2023. There are more than 134,000 transgender veterans in the U.S., according to the Williams Institute, a research center at UCLA School of Law that focuses on sexual orientation and gender identity. Newsweek contacted the VA by email to comment. A laboratory assistant shows a sperm sample in a cryopreservation container at minus-170 degrees Celsius at the Centre for Reproductive Medicine in Muenster, Germany, on February 6, 2013. A laboratory assistant shows a sperm sample in a cryopreservation container at minus-170 degrees Celsius at the Centre for Reproductive Medicine in Muenster, Germany, on February 6, 2013. Photo by: Friso Gentsch/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images Since taking office for the second time, President Donald Trump has made a plethora of actions regarding transgender people, including signing an executive order stating that there are only two unchangeable sexes and another attempting to ban transgender women from competing in women's sports. He also signed an order aimed at restricting access to puberty blockers and other gender care for people under age 19. Some of the actions have sparked ongoing legal challenges. On February 18, he also signed an executive order expanding access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and making it more affordable for patients. While IVF does not always require cryopreservation, it is often used to store excess embryos or to enable people to delay embryo transfer until a time of their choosing. The White House directed Newsweek to the VA after a request for comment. In the VA specifically, in March it was announced that the department was phasing out treatment for gender dysphoria in response to Trump's executive order recognizing two sexes. The VA said trans veterans would still continue to receive VA health care. The VA email, viewed by Newsweek said: "On yesterday's (6/16/2025) National Fertility Interdisciplinary Teams Office Hours call, it was announced that VA will no longer pay for cryopreservation of gametes for a medical indication if it involves transgender veterans seeking cryopreservation in preparation for treatment of Gender Dysphoria or Gender Identity Disorder. This will reportedly affect new authorizations and will not disrupt cryopreservation that has already been initiated." It added that according to another senior official in the Veterans Health Administration "the change is reportedly already in effect and an official announcement will be forthcoming" and advised the department to "hold on authorizing any new cryopreservation for medical indications related to gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder" while waiting for further guidance. "We want to avoid a situation where veterans could be told they are approved for cryo, only to find out after the fact that VA cannot pay for care they received," the email read. Newsweek chose not to name the person who sent the email as well as the senior official named in the correspondence to protect their privacy. According to the October 2023 Women Veterans Health Care document, fertility preservation of eggs and sperm, but not embryos, is covered by the VA for medical reasons. "If your VA health care provider determines there is a medical indication, VA can cover the cost of retrieving and freezing your eggs or sperm to preserve your fertility preservation," it said. It listed examples of medical indications that would be covered, including "veterans who are undergoing gender-affirming care that can affect their ovaries or testes." Roz Keith, the founder and executive director of the Michigan-based transgender charity Stand With Trans, said the policy was "discrimination." "Clearly, the rights of the trans community are the target of attack," she told Newsweek. "It doesn't matter whether someone is an adult, a minor, a veteran, a professional, or other, if one is trans identified, they are seeing rights being taken away one by one. It is deplorable. If one class of people can receive treatment paid for with their benefits, then other classes of people should receive the same. This is why we have the equal protection clause in our Constitution. "No one should be excluded from a particular treatment because they are transgender. This is the very definition of discrimination."


Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Democrat States Rolling Back Health Care Benefits for Immigrants
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Multiple Democratic-led states, including California, Illinois and Minnesota, have moved to roll back or freeze health care coverage for undocumented immigrants. Others may follow suit. Why It Matters The rollback of state-funded health care access for undocumented immigrants could signal a significant policy shift with national implications. The developments come amid larger debates over immigration and health care policy at a time when state and federal budgets face significant pressures. What To Know These policy reversals have been attributed by the states' Democratic leaders to mounting budget deficits and rising program costs. While coverage for many undocumented residents had been expanded in recent years, governors announced measures to reduce benefits, freeze new enrollments or end programs entirely. Such changes could affect tens of thousands of individuals and counter notions of universal health care, backed by many Democrats, while prompting broader reassessment of similar programs in other states, including Colorado, New York and Washington. Some Democratic-run states are rolling back health care, or considering rolling it back, for undocumented immigrants because of tightened budgets. Some Democratic-run states are rolling back health care, or considering rolling it back, for undocumented immigrants because of tightened budgets. Flourish California: Enrollment Freeze and Possible Benefit Reductions California Governor Gavin Newsom has announced plans to freeze new enrollments in Medi-Cal, the state's Medicaid program, for undocumented adults. Existing recipients would remain covered but could face reduced benefits in the future. Starting in 2027, the state plans to introduce a $100 monthly premium for adults without satisfactory immigration status, attributed to higher-than-expected spending and a multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall. The pause in California is for undocumented adults who haven't already enrolled in Medi-Cal, not people already enrolled. It does not apply to those under age 19, as even those who turn 19 and are on Medi-Cal and remain income eligible will keep their coverage. In May, Newsom said: "We are not cutting or rolling back those that are already enrolled in our Medi-Cal system, we're just capping state has done more than the state of California, no state will continue to more than the state of California by a long shot. That's a point of pride and that's a point of privilege to be governor that's been part of that effort." Under Newsom, California became the first state to offer full-scope Medi-Cal to all low-income adults, regardless of immigration status—expanding access in phases to young adults in 2020, older adults in 2022 and all remaining adults in 2024. "Governor Newsom championed these expansions and remains committed to protecting the immigrant communities who contribute to the fabric and economy of California," Elana Ross, deputy communications director for Newsom's office, told Newsweek on Friday. "He refuses to turn his back on hard-working Californians, especially when it comes to their basic health care needs. "But because of the $16 billion Trump Slump and higher-than-expected health care utilization, the state must take difficult but necessary steps to ensure fiscal stability and preserve the long-term viability of Medi-Cal for all Californians." Proposed adjustments in California's 2025-26 budget would include a $100 monthly premium for certain adults, effective January 1, 2027, and applies to Medi-Cal enrollees age 19 and older with "unsatisfactory immigration status—in line with the average subsidized covered California premium, which is about $135 per month in 2025. The estimated general fund savings would be $2.1 billion by 2028-29. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at East Los Angeles College on February 26, 2025, in Monterey Park, California. California Governor Gavin Newsom speaks at East Los Angeles College on February 26, 2025, in Monterey Park, enrollment freeze for full-scope Medi-Cal for undocumented adults, effective no sooner than January 1, 2026, applies only to new adult applicants over 19. Nobody under such a freeze would be kicked off their health care. There would be no impact on limited-scope coverage (emergency, pregnancy services, etc.) and children would remain unaffected. The state, which has previously frozen a publicly sponsored coverage program during difficult budget years, has estimated general-fund savings to be $3.3 billion by 2028-29. Illinois: Full Program Termination Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has proposed ending the Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults program as of July 1. The program, launched in 2021, provided state-funded health coverage to more than 30,000 low-income undocumented adults. The decision is a response to higher-than-anticipated costs, aligning with broader deficit reduction efforts. Those previously enrolled will be left without similar coverage options. Newsweek reached out to Pritzker's office for comment. Minnesota: Removal From MinnesotaCare Pritzker specifically related his in-state efforts to what is happening in neighboring states like Minnesota, where Governor Tim Walz said he would sign a bill removing undocumented adults from MinnesotaCare, a state-funded program, by year's end. While coverage for undocumented adults will end, eligibility will continue for undocumented children. The bill reversed a major health policy expansion from 2023. Newsweek reached out to Walz's office for comment. Broader National Trend and Political Debate Congressional Republicans in Colorado, one of seven states offering health care regardless of immigration status, are urging Democratic Governor Jared Polis to rescind Medicaid eligibility for undocumented immigrants. A letter co-signed by Representatives Lauren Boebert, Jeff Crank and Gabe Evans referenced recent rollbacks in California and Minnesota, and cited concerns over rising costs and effects on the state's Medicaid program. The letter, in part, says that each new dollar invested in care for illegal immigrants is a dollar that could go to supporting long-term care for seniors or keeping rural hospitals open. "Congressman Gabe Evans believes Governor Polis should prioritize taxpayer-funded health care for citizens who need it most: single mothers, children and people with disabilities," a spokesperson for Evans told Newsweek on Friday. "Additionally, every dollar that Colorado hands out for free health care for illegal immigrants is money that can't be spent on seniors and rural hospitals." Newsweek reached out to Polis' office for comment. What Happens Next Debate in other states, such as New York and Washington, suggests that similar policy shifts could spread. Democratic governors pointed to financial constraints and anticipated federal funding cuts as primary reasons for reversing course. Pressures from federal proposals, such as a Trump-endorsed bill to reduce Medicaid support for states offering coverage to undocumented immigrants, are shaping state policies. States like New York and Washington are reviewing their own policies, signaling that further changes may be forthcoming as budget negotiations and federal actions continue.