Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hb 6 96 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Retirees press lawmakers to restore state prescription benefit under HB 6-96; sponsor cites promise to long-term state workers
Summary
Hundreds of retirees and advocate groups told the Appropriations Committee that replacing the state prescription program with Medicare Part D raised out-of-pocket costs and left many low-income retirees struggling; Delegate Robin Grammer asked for a favorable report on HB 6-96 to reinstate coverage for retirees hired before July 1, 2011.
Delegate Robin Grammer presented HB 6-96, which would restore the prescription-drug benefit and certain state health-and-welfare plan coverages for employees and retirees who vested before 07/01/2011. The sponsor said many long-serving state employees relied on the promise of continued prescription coverage in retirement and that restoration would "right a wrong." He cited constituent letters describing life-saving drugs whose costs now fall on fixed incomes.
Retirees and retiree groups described higher copays and uncovered drugs after the state transitioned some retirees to Medicare Part D. Sarah Mastronardi, president of the Maryland State Police Alumni Association, warned that some retirees live on very small retirement checks and face premiums and co-pays they cannot afford. Written testimony and surveys cited by James Roberts and Kathleen Miller documented average prescription cost increases and gaps in coverage, with multiple witnesses asking that the HRA (health reimbursement arrangement/debit card) eligibility date be broadened for fairness.
Deborah Holloway Hill, the attorney who handled litigation regarding the prescription program change, told the committee that tens of thousands of retirees could be affected and urged reinstatement for the cohorts specified in the bill.
Committee members raised fiscal questions. Delegate Grammer acknowledged a fiscal note (the sponsor cited a 2027 figure around $299 million) but argued the state budget has grown substantially and that honoring past promises to employees is important. Supporters urged amendments to broaden access to the HRA and to address arbitrary eligibility cutoffs; some witnesses proposed phased solutions or targeted relief to the most vulnerable.
What happens next: The bill drew substantial in-person and virtual support and amendments were discussed; the transcript does not show a final committee vote. The sponsor and retiree advocates signaled a desire to negotiate amendments to address fiscal and eligibility details.
