Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firefighter Health And Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Firefighters, unions push insurance coverage for cancer screenings and parity for military‑base crews
Summary
Firefighters and union advocates told the Joint Committee on Public Safety that cancer screenings should be covered by insurance, that Commonwealth‑employed firefighters at former federal bases lack parity with municipal crews for presumptions and medical payments, and they urged funding for replacement of PFAS‑containing gear.
Representatives of Massachusetts firefighter organizations urged the Joint Committee on Public Safety to report several bills that would require insurance coverage for cancer screenings, extend disability presumptions and medical coverage to Commonwealth firefighters at former federal bases, and preserve physical‑examination records for public safety personnel.
Supporters said cancer screening is a preventive measure that currently is not uniformly covered by health insurance for firefighters and that parity is needed for crews transferred from federal service to Commonwealth or MassPort employment.
"I'm here on the bill that I filed and, also in support of the other bills that's gonna be mentioned today. But it's, h 29 18, which is an act relative to mandatory coverage for certain health screening for firefighters," Representative Rita Mendez told the committee, recounting cases in which firefighters paid out of pocket for early detection services.
Paul Jakes, legislative agent for the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts, told the committee the screenings have led to early diagnoses in Brockton and Attleboro, and that members often pay for screenings themselves. "We just ask once again that this bill get reported favorably out of committee and and hopefully passed, through the legislative process," Jakes said.
Witnesses also described a coverage gap for Commonwealth firefighters assigned to former federal bases (including Davis‑Monthan/Barnes references in testimony) and said the Public Employee Retirement Administration Commission's interpretation of the term "upon hire" can deny presumptions for members who served in federal roles before transferring to state service. Representative Mendez asked the committee to correct that oversight so those employees receive the same presumptions and medical bill coverage as municipal firefighters.
Committee members and union witnesses discussed related legislation already passed or pending, including state measures restricting PFAS in turnout gear and funding mechanisms to replace contaminated gear. "The PFAS 1 now is in the current stage where it's in the labeling stage," said a union representative, adding that jurisdictions have until 2027 to stop selling PFAS‑containing gear; advocates said funding will be needed so cities and towns can replace equipment.
Several senators and representatives voiced support for the screening bill and parity measures and asked staff to monitor related funding and implementation timelines. No formal committee vote on the bills was recorded during the hearing. Supporters submitted written testimony and asked for favorable reports to advance the measures through the legislative process.
