Page 6 - November 2017 Magazine

ANGELO CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5
many areas of this order that are more restrictive than law requires, and the reasons appear to be more about conciliation to the community than to ensure the safety of the Police Officers who serve and protect those communities. Sev- eral areas speak to Officers being held to new levels of accountability, while seemingly limiting their ability to protect themselves without immediate exposure to increased risk. It is obvious that much of this new order was impacted by politi- cians, community groups and other entities who will never face situations Police Officers face. The more time one spends absorbing this language, the more apparent that no “working Police” were involved in the order’s development. Restriction after restriction, limitation after limitation and prohibition after prohibition further guarantee that at the end of the day, the “working Police” will be the ones in the headlines. It cer- tainly will not be the conglomeration of those who have laid claim to being involved in the order’s development; such as, “the Research and Development Division...in conjunction with various internal units and outside entities (the Police Executive Research Forum (aka PERF), the Chicago Police Accountability Task Force, non-Police community groups and quite possibly the Department of Justice) [who all] reviewed, evaluated, and revised the entirety of the Department's Use of Force Guidelines” who will never face any type of increased scrutiny or increased risk that will surely be part and parcel of the new Use of Force General Order.
DOJ winding down
forward to reading a truly unique and Chicago-specific DOJ report, one that goes beyond the mere cut-and-paste style our members are expecting. While we don’t have too much longer to wait for the DOJ report, we will soon read if the DOJ breaks from routine and actually focuses on true Department patterns and practice and not political pressures.
Speaking of the Department of Justice (DOJ), dare we spec- ulate on the issuance of its long-awaited report? If the typical timeframe that was spent on several of its previous examina- tions across the country is an accurate measurement, the Chicago Report could be finalized by year’s end, or a bit longer. While we will need to continue our wait, we can speculate on what the report might contain. If one wanted to anticipate what the report might cover by scanning over any of the DOJ’s previous reports which follow its examinations, they appear to offer an insight into a consistency from report to report. Recently, more than a few of our members have offered their own opinions when it comes to the DOJ’s final reports. Many have stated that the DOJ merely cuts-and-pastes its findings. The members go on to state that it is obvious that the only change from report to report is the name of the city/agency that was examined.
Issues resulted when hospital and doctor’s office staff mis- informed some retirees that Aetna was not an accepted sup- plement. Subsequently, phone calls, emails and electronic postings started to come in questioning why Aetna became the offered program, specifically addressing that certain hos- pitals and doctors wouldn’t be accepting it. We immediately reached out to the insurance contact to get to the bottom of these concerns. The insurance reps quickly reached out to Aetna corporate, which then reached out to the same hospitals and doctors. Once the complete Aetna program design and coverage was shared, the results were quite positive and cleared up these issues. When we asked how this could have happened, it became apparent that there were issues on both ends of this equation. Our retirees were not equipped with the full details of the Aetna program and therefore limited in asking the proper questions. Related to the same limitations, the hospital and doctor’s office staffs were unaware of the uniqueness of the Aetna program, as well, and therefore mis- informed our retirees concerning coverage.
Needless to say, one might expect that the DOJ would surely argue against any accusations that pertain to any type of cut- and-paste approach. After months of interviews, reviews and meetings, it would appear more likely that at least some aspects of the DOJ’s findings must be agency-specific. After all, the Department continues to handwrite all of the A& A sheets. Even with requiring that activity be measured in order to par- ticipate for extra-employment, every unit appears to be tallying and reporting the information differently. While every- body in the world clamors for transparency, the Department continues to dodge its responsibility to immediately score and publicly post all promotional exams. Both have been ongoing Departmental practices which do nothing but bolster Officer- perceptions that testing is less than fair.
There are major differences between a typical Medicare Advantage program when compared to the one being offered by the City to Chicago Police and Chicago Firefighter retirees at the 11th hour (which by the way was designed by utilizing input from these same retiree groups). A little history on this program’s design: The CPD/CFD retirees shared their health- care needs with FOP Lodge 7, CFD Local 2 and insurance reps during multiple face-to-face meetings. The retirees consistent- ly asked for the following: to be able to see their own doctor; go to their own hospital; be covered in any zip code; have no problems with referrals, no pre-existing condition limitations and no prescription doughnut hole. Lodge 7 and Local 2 then reached out to locate an insurance carrier that would be willing to build such a distinct, but also affordable, program. As we had promised all along, this program needed to be up and running to ensure healthcare coverage would be in place if/when the City was successful at no longer being responsible to provide retiree healthcare coverage.
Dare we expect to read that these archaic issues, among sev- eral others, finally will be sorted out and put to an end? We look
6 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ NOVEMBER 2016
Retiree Healthcare rollout
During the final week of October and into the first week of November, representatives from Aetna, Labor First and Ullico assisted hundreds of local retirees with their search for, and selection of, a healthcare program. Nobody should ever have expected that the replacement of a long-standing insurance process would roll out without experiencing an issue or two, and dealing with the multifaceted concerns of the present retiree healthcare issues is certainly no exception. However, the first weekend of face-to-face meetings went surprisingly smooth. Although certainly not problem-free, more than 100 face-to-face meetings took place on the FOP’s second floor over Oct. 28-29, followed by approximately 750 retirees attend- ing the first informational session at the Lone Tree Manor on Nov. 1. During the following three days, more than 1,500 retirees attended the remaining informational sessions at the Lone Tree Manor and 115 Bourbon Street locations Nov. 2-4.