- 27 jurisdictions have agreed to be insured through the GIC. They include Melrose, Pittsfield, Quincy, Springfield and Weymouth.
- 62 locals were involved in GIC activity. Thirty-five percent of those conversations were initiated by both parties, 44 percent by the unions and only 21 percent by the employer.
- MTA paid for research comparing the costs and benefits of current plans with those offered by the GIC in 65 percent of these communities.
- In communities where no agreement was reached, the reasons varied. The most often cited reasons were: no savings or insufficient savings in 23 percent of the communities, inability to agree on how to split the savings in 14 percent and the lack of a Blue Cross/Blue Shield offering by the GIC in 16 percent.
- In the past three years, 65 other MTA locals have negotiated cost savings in health insurance in other ways. These include changing the plan design to increase co-pays and/or deductibles for employees and having employees pay a higher percentage of the total premium while the community pays a smaller one.
- The GIC does not work for every municipality. An analysis of the potential savings needs to be done community by community, and then an agreement on a fair distribution of the savings needs to be reached.
- In some communities, cost savings can be achieved by negotiating with other carriers that offer rates competitive to those of the GIC. [For example, 34 municipalities in Hampshire, Franklin, and Hampden County use the Hampshire Group Insurance Trust].
- The [MTA] survey suggests that nearly half of our locals saw less than 6 percent increases in the cost of insurance in 2008, while 23 percent saw increases of 7 percent to 9 percent.
“Clearly, having the GIC as an option for communities has contributed to a more competitive municipal health insurance market.”