To the editor:
The recent front-page Globe article suggesting that Governor Maura Healey has strained relationships with organized labor raises an important question: What would meaningful, tangible support for working people actually look like?
One answer is sitting quietly on Beacon Hill right now in the form of H.1399.
Unlike symbolic political gestures, H.1399 would have an immediate and measurable financial impact on hundreds of thousands of Medicare-eligible municipal retirees across Massachusetts—teachers, firefighters, police officers, DPW workers, librarians, clerks, and countless others who devoted decades of service to their communities.
The bill would allow municipalities to offer Medicare-eligible retirees access to the individual Medicare marketplace while preserving protections and oversight. Properly implemented, retirees could obtain equal or better coverage at materially lower cost, while municipalities could dramatically reduce exploding retiree healthcare liabilities.
This is not theoretical.
For most, if not all retirees, the savings could amount to thousands of dollars annually in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. For municipalities and the Commonwealth, the reduction in OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) liabilities could total billions of dollars.
Those savings matter because retiree healthcare obligations are crushing local and state finances. Every dollar consumed by unsustainable OPEB costs is a dollar unavailable for schools, roads, public safety, pensions, and municipal services.
Ironically, opposition to H.1399 has largely come from organizations claiming to protect retirees. But preserving an increasingly unaffordable status quo is not a long-term strategy. Flexibility matters. Innovation matters. And affordability matters.
Importantly, H.1399 does not require any municipality to make changes. It merely gives local officials, unions, retirees, and insurance providers another tool—another “arrow in the quiver”—to design programs that work for their communities.
In reality, no municipality would pursue such a transition unless retirees were at least as well off financially and medically. Any proposal that failed that basic test would face immediate political resistance, union opposition, and likely collective bargaining challenges. The goal is not benefit reduction. The goal is better outcomes at lower cost.
Supporting H.1399 would therefore send a powerful message from Governor Healey.
It would demonstrate that supporting labor is not merely about rhetoric or political alliances. It is about improving the actual financial lives of retirees while helping preserve the long-term fiscal health of the municipalities that employ union workers.
At a time when affordability dominates nearly every political conversation in Massachusetts, H.1399 offers something rare: a policy that can simultaneously help retirees, taxpayers, municipalities, and future generations.
If Governor Healey wants to rebut the perception that her administration is disconnected from organized labor, she does not need a new slogan.
She needs a signature.
David Kornwitz
Chair, Wellesley Retirement Board
(Submitted in my personal capacity.)
