New York's supreme court rules in favor of the city in a disputed case regarding Medicare Advantage benefits for retirees
In a significant decision in June 2025, New York's Court of Appeals upheld Mayor Eric Adams' plan to shift city retirees from traditional Medicare to Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, ruling that the city was not obligated to continue offering traditional Medicare plus a supplemental Medigap plan.
The retirees, who argued that Medicare Advantage plans reduce access and increase costs due to profit motives, and that the city had promised supplemental Medicare benefits, were unable to prove harm from the change. The court held that the city was not required to maintain the benefits it gave retirees decades ago.
Despite this ruling, retiree advocacy groups and some city council members continue to push for legislation to require the city to offer traditional Medicare with supplemental Medigap plans. Councilmember Charles Barron has introduced legislation to mandate the provision of a Medigap plan to Medicare-eligible city retirees. Council Member Gale Brewer is a co-sponsor of this legislation.
The Organisation of Public Service Retirees, led by Marianne Pizzitola, is at the forefront of the fight against the switch to Medicare Advantage. Pizzitola has called on the City Council and the mayor to do the right thing and codify protections for seniors in city law. Council Member Justin Brannan, another supporter of the retirees, decried the ruling, calling it "nonsense".
The switch to Medicare Advantage was triggered by Mayor Adams' administration in March 2023, signing a contract with Aetna to provide a Medicare Advantage plan to retirees. This move resulted in a lawsuit being filed by retirees, who argued that the switch would result in smaller networks and more out-of-pocket costs.
The City Council has legislation aimed at requiring retirees to be entitled to traditional Medicare benefits. However, as of mid-2025, no such legislation has passed. The ruling reversed lower court rulings that protected the retirees from what they argued was inferior coverage and a deviation from the benefits they were promised as city workers.
Spokespeople for Mayor Adams' office and the city Law Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the ruling. The solution to protecting seniors' healthcare, according to Pizzitola, lies with the City Council and the mayor. The ruling deals a blow to the city retirees who have organised to fight the switch, attracting political supporters and elected officials to their cause along the way.
The retirees, disputing the switch to Medicare Advantage because of potential access restrictions and increased costs due to profit motives, are advocating for legislation that mandates the provision of a Medigap plan to city retirees. In response, Council Member Charles Barron has introduced such legislation, with Council Member Gale Brewer as the co-sponsor.
Confronting the decision of shifting city retirees to Medicare Advantage, Council Member Justin Brannan and the Organisation of Public Service Retirees insist on codifying protections for seniors in city law, claiming that the solution to safeguarding healthcare lies with the City Council and the mayor.
