It's good to hear that Gloucester's Public Employees Committee — comprised of leaders of the city's employee unions — put forward and Mayor Carolyn Kirk signed off on an agreement last week that allows employees to stay on their health insurance plan, with no boost in the city's premium costs.
Indeed, the spirit shown by the unions in working to keep the city's budget insurance costs at a level figure for the first time in recent memory is a positive step, considering the plans meant increases in employee co-payments and new deductibles — even if they are partially subsidized — when put in place last spring.
But that doesn't mean the City Council shouldn't still follow through and adopt the new state guidelines that give mayors or town administrators more authority to make changes in health care plans with a diminished need for bargaining each and every step.
Phil Bouchie, the firefighters' union chief who deserves a lot of credit for seeing the committee's proposal through, says the deal shows the new administrative leverage isn't needed — and he's right. But the mayor's office should have this important cost-cutting tool available in future years when it may well be.
Under the 2011 legislation, a city or town chief executive or administrator can choose to shift his or her community under the wing of the state's Group Insurance if it can show that savings through the GIC would be 5 percent greater than a proposed health insurance plan.
That's not the case this time. The city's Harvard Pilgrim plan, the employees' committee and city officials found, is 6 percent less costly than the comparable GIC plan. But will those figures hold up next year? Or the years after that?
There may actually be some chance of that. Kirk noted that one reason for Harvard Pilgrim maintaining its same rate this year may well be the competition and the GIC option the new legislation brings. But when, not if, the rates go up again, it's important for the city's mayor to have the option of shifting to get the best price not only for employees, but for taxpayers as well.
Yes, it's good the city has a short-term deal — and the unions' committee deserved kudos for playing the lead role in putting it in place. But health insurance costs will likely remain a long-term issue — and the city needs every long-term option it can get.
