Open letter to Michael Mulgrew about SHIP co-pay reimbursements

And the accompanying paperwork

Dear President Mulgrew:

During the 2025 election, retirees enrolled in SHIP were offered a chance to recoup $105 in recently initiated co-pays. That certainly sounded attractive. After all, no retiree member unafilliated with your Unity Caucus wanted the co-pays in the first place.

When I had a tooth pulled by a non-participating dentist, I sent a copy of the bill and a copy of the paid receipt the doctor provided me. I was reimbursed. When I had a hospital visit, I sent a copy of the bill and a copy of the paid receipt the hospital emailed me. I was reimbursed. That seemed reasonable.

So when I applied for the co-pay refund, I sent copies of bills and emailed paid receipts to SHIP. They were not deemed sufficient. I was disappointed.

As a longtime chapter leader, I know UFT opposes excessive and redundant paperwork. We have special complaints to preclude it. That’s one reason I’m so surprised that UFT now demands it from tens of thousands of retirees.

A friend of mine was very sick. As a result, he had a bunch of charges, very early last year, from NYU/Langone. He was able to complete SHIP’s requirements via a single MyChart. It took him two hours. Another friend of mine, who used doctors with various affiliations, spent four hours doing it with various MyCharts. While she felt it wasn’t worth her time, she also felt she could not let it go, and had to do the work.

Without MyCharts, the paperwork would even be more daunting.

I’m good with sending bills from my doctors along with receipts. I think that’s reasonable. The chance of receiving a 15 dollar bill from my doctor, if I hadn’t met my Medicare or GHI deductible, hovers somewhere around zero. Perhaps leadership thinks we, or our doctors, would counterfeit these things to get 105 dollars back. Is that how you see us?

Instead of the two documents I’d sent previously, my co-pay refund required:

Page 1 from my primary insurance carrier, Medicare Part B, indicating deduction has been met for year in question,

The complete EOB for my secondary insurance carrier for all 7 days of service.

The copy of the patient statement from the provider indicating the dates of service and paid copay.

proof of out of pocket payment (cancelled check, credit card receipt and/ or paid itemized invoice) for service dates

I like computers. I use them all the time. When my doctor emails bills asking for payment, I use a credit card and pay. I learned the hard way that said bills and the paid receipts my doctor emails were not sufficient. Somehow neither qualifies as patient statement or receipt.

You may be surprised to learn some retirees do not love computers. Many don’t use them at all. This makes getting their paperwork even more difficult. In fact, my wife doesn’t use computers. I cannot imagine even trying to put together her papers.

For me, after hours trying to recover the documentation SHIP demanded, I gave up. It wasn’t worth my time. In fact, I would only attempt this again in order to write about it. If I were to bill for my time, I would ask well more than what SHIP would give me back. The DOE pays teachers well more than 25 dollars an hour for our time. We pay UFT officials multiple times what teachers earn.

I’m acutely aware, though, that many UFT retirees may need the 105 dollars. Should they be penalized for that?

Were a principal to demand this sort of paperwork, as chapter leader I’d argue it was redundant and excessive. I’d contact my DR, file an operational complaint and win. It’s sorely disappointing that our leadership places so little value on the time of UFT retirees.

I understand that there are periods when SHIP is so busy dealing with co-pay refunds that those and other applications are therefore delayed. Who does that help? I further understand that SHIP had to hire extra people simply to help retirees struggling to complete these steps. I understand they have to be paid. I also understand that this was a big reason why leadership found it necessary to double SHIP fees.

In fact, UFT Representative Robin DiPalma suggested just that during our April RTC meeting. What this means to us this—in order to procure a $105 refund with great difficulty, every SHIP member is required to pay $120. We don’t need math experts to demonstrate that’s a net loss for members (and a bigger one for those who can’t manage the paperwork).

I have a number of suggestions to remedy this situation. The best way, of course, would be to eliminate the co-pays altogether. They certainly appear to have been established to make your failed Medicare Advantage plan look more attractive, as it had a cap on co-pays but real Medicare does not. I’ve also heard you say that they were designed to be temporary.

These co-pays are very bad for members with low pensions and frequent medical visits. I know at least one who’s been driven to virtual penury as a result, and I’d be happy to discuss that case with you if you are interested.

Of course, if you’re unwilling to do that, there are other remedies. An easy one would be to simply drop the co-pay refund along with the SHIP increase. Let’s be frank—the refund was initiated during the UFT 2025 campaign. It certainly appears designed to draw retiree votes, and may well have done so. That said, for many, it’s proven more trouble than it’s worth.

The third possibility, albeit the least desirable, would be to simplify the requirements. Many or most of us would have no trouble sending bills and paid receipts. SHIP employees would find it easier as well. It boggles my mind to imagine anyone would bother to falsify documents to get 105 dollars back.

If you won’t do even that, I have to assume you see UFT retirees as a bunch of lowlifes—criminals so petty we’d commit forgery for 105 bucks. I know there are some in leadership with a dim view of retirees. For example, one of your district reps shared ageist memes with chapter leaders at the DA, and they all seemed very amused by them.

Not only that, but the Executive Board appears to have applauded this district rep when he professed respect for older people. I’m glad this DR was not a member of a school in which I were chapter leader. My principal would most certainly not have applauded his actions.

I wonder how this would have gone over if his target were a racial or religious group. As you have not uttered a word about this, I can only assume it doesn’t bother you. .

These SHIP “reforms” are ageist. We are not trusted, and are therefore forced to do excessive paperwork. These reforms demonstrate no respect for our time, and appear to have been created as a smokescreen designed to make us forget that you, as a big part of the Municipal Labor Committee, initiated co-pays we neither needed nor wanted.

However, if you’d like to prove me wrong, taking one of my suggestions would go a long way toward demonstrating your good will.

Very truly yours,

Arthur Goldstein

Vice Chair, UFT Retired Teacher Chapter