When John Davy went to work for the state of New Hampshire, he was told if he worked for the requisite number of years, he would earn a fully paid health insurance benefit in retirement. John made the career decision to work for the state and be in the New Hampshire Retirement System for 30 years because he took the state on its word – moreover he trusted the State of New Hampshire to keep its promise.

John has been retired now for 18 years. He and the 9,000 other state retirees have few career options ahead of them compared to when they decided to enter public service 20 or 30 years ago. Yet the state, over the last six years has slowly eroded this promised benefit – early retirees (under age 65) have seen a premium double in the last two years and their prescription costs go up, as well. Those retirees who are over 65 have seen their Medicare part B premium cease to be covered and prescription cost increases.

This year, the legislature has wrestled with the issue of how to cover a remaining shortfall in retiree health benefit funding for the biennium. I would like to first thank those in the House and Senate who have found the necessary $700,000 needed to close the projected shortfalls and stem the need for any further changes to retirees this biennium. However, what the Legislature is still considering is giving the Fiscal Committee, a body of only 10 House and Senate members, complete control over charging state retirees who are over age 65 a premium rate. This group is the most vulnerable of all state retirees, it includes the people who have been retired the longest and those who are in their 80s and 90s and a few who are over 100.

The Legislature has already relinquished too much authority to the Fiscal Committee on this issue. This approach cuts out the other 414 members of the Legislature and the governor on what should be treated as major policy.

In anticipation of future budgets needing to cover more retirees, we agree that we should bring all parties together to figure out how we can best keep our promise to those who have earned this benefit, especially for those over age 65 who have relied on it for years.

But that is what we should do now and come back during the full budget process to debate those ideas.

I urge the Legislature to shore up the retiree health budget for this biennium by using agency savings or our significant budget surplus; and to bring people together over the summer and fall to give input on how to move forward so those, who have earned the promise of retiree health insurance by giving their careers to the state, can be confident their health care will be there for them. Giving the fiscal committee more power over this area is unwise and undemocratic. The governor and Legislature should reject this approach.

(Rich Gulla is president of the State Employees’ Association/SEIU Local 1984.)