Public Employees’ Alliance Challenges Medco Changes

URA members who regularly use their State Health Benefits Program (SHBP) prescription plan are upset about changes implemented by Medco, the new contractor administering the plan.

These concerns came to light at the January 11 general membership meeting. Now, URA is working with the Public Employees Committee of the New Jersey AFL-CIO to demand a complete accounting of the changes from SHPB officials and Medco itself.

Kay Schechter

Kay Schechter sees many potential problems. Schechter is a College Avenue steward whose family of five relies on her prescription coverage. “Depending on the drug, the differences can be very serious” she said. Schechter said that generics, such as those for attention deficit disorder, are not always as precise, and they may work or not, possibly leaving children “bouncing off the wall.” She asked what happens if the antibiotic that works for you is not covered. “If a doctor gives you x and then y and then z, you can be sick for a month and near pneumonia before you find another effective treatment.”

Our sister AFT Council of New Jersey State College Locals (www.cnjscl.org) has filed a grievance on the matter. In a letter to the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations, Council president Nick Yovnello wrote:

“Medco’s non-negotiated prescription plan penalizes AFT members for the use of a ‘non-preferred’ drug. It adds another onerous pre-authorization process for our members and their physicians; it further creates a two-tiered prescription plan for AFT employees because members who are using the non-preferred medications prior to February 1 do not need to undergo a review, while member who present a first time non-preferred drug prescription must either get it changed or seek approval from Medco.”

“The entire Medco scheme constitutes a diminution of benefits in violation of Article XIX [of the AFT-New Jersey State Colleges agreement] … The appropriate remedy is for the State to direct Medco to abandon its plan to implement the above changes in the prescription drug program and to inform all AFT members of same.”

URA is consulting with Yovnello and the Council to determine how we can support this grievance. We are also consulting with our attorneys to discuss filing our own grievance. URA does not negotiate with the State directly, but Rutgers employees are considered state employees for the purpose of health benefits.

Article 13 of the URA-Rutgers agreement (www.ura-aft.org/contractstates:

"With respect to those items regarding health benefits that are required by law to be determined pursuant to a binding collective negotiations agreement, the provisions applicable to employees represented by the Council of New Jersey State College Locals, AFT, shall apply to employees in the URA-AFT bargaining unit."

As an active member of the New Jersey AFL-CIO, URA will join the Public Employee’s Committee to combat this “diminution of benefits.”

“URA members will need to learn that phrase: diminution of benefits,” said Lucye Millerand, URA president. “It is what we call a backdoor attempt to reduce the value of our health benefits and shift more cost on to the employee.”

The practice is especially insidious when it affects retirees, said Millerand. “My mother (a Rutgers retiree) is being pressured to switch medications that have worked well for her for years,” she said. “Politicians are busy talking about how ‘generous’ are benefits are, while they are simultaneously cutting them without negotiation.”

If you and your family have had out-of pocket costs increased, or if you and your physician have experienced trouble with the ”non-preferred” approval practice and you want to get involved in protecting the value of your benefits, please email union@ura-aft.org.

[Note: The Medco cards distributed to URA members at Rutgers were labeled "AFSCME." URA has contacted the University to discuss the matter]