GRIPA is an association of local doctors affiliated with RGH.
The idea is two-fold. First, the doctors in the network will all share information, meaning that if you see a specialist, the specialist will have access to the records from your primary care doctor and your primary care doctor will be able to see the records from the specialist. Second, GRIPA analyzes the records and then initiates efforts to improve care and lower costs. Essentially, their system will flag people with diabetes, heart disease, or taking expensive medications. They will then try to work with that person to do things like make sure they are following up with their doctors as often as they should be, trying different medications that might be cheaper but as effective, or even contacting the doctors if they think the doctor has missed something. The goal is to provide better care and reduce costs – both by switching to cheaper treatments where possible and by keeping control of ongoing conditions, like diabetes, to avoid expensive trips to the emergency room.
GRIPA will provide data to Brown and Brown, the health care consultants for the County, and that information will hopefully be used to justify negotiating cheaper renewal rates from Excellus.
The County will (we are told) never see any personal health information connected with any name. What they will see is, for example, a report showing that at the start of the program 100 county employees were on Lipitor, and after 6 months of the program that number had been reduced to 75, resulting is reduced cost of X-dollars.
The doctors can already share information without any further authorization from members, as virtually every doctor requires patients to execute an authorization to disclose medical records to other health care providers as needed for treatment. We have been told that GRIPA as systems in place so that only doctors/employees with a legitimate purpose can access a patients records. They have to log on to the system, so there would be a record of who has accessed information.
The program does not affect health care coverage, no one has to change doctors and it is voluntary. You don’t have to follow GRIPA’s advice or suggestions, and there is a number to call to entirely opt out of the program. I am told it takes about 30 seconds to do.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
MILITARY DAYS OFF
The Sheriff is taking the position that the Sheriff’s Office employees do not get both their regular pay and the contractual holiday pay. Our attorney and I think we have a good argument they get both. However, we will have to wait until after the 4th, when the members don’t receive double pay, and then file a grievance. Double pay is in dispute and will not likely be resolved for several months at least.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
In the Matter of Thomas J. BRADY, etc., Respondent,
Eugene KELLEY, Chief of Police, Suffolk County Police Department, et al., Appellants.
Feb. 23, 1976.
Police officer petitioned pursuant to Article 78 to compel police department to furnish certain veterans’ benefits to himself and to others similarly situated. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, directed the police department to accord to petitioner and all others similarly situated the benefits provided veterans under the Public Officers Law. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the honorably discharged veteran police officer was entitled to a leave of absence with pay on Veterans’ Day and Memorial Day, but he was not entitled to additional compensation or time off by virtue of the fact that those same holidays were also paid holidays under the existing employment contract between the county and the police officers’ union of which he was a member.
Affirmed as modified.
West Headnotes KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
268 Municipal Corporations
268V Officers, Agents, and Employees
268V(B) Municipal Departments and Officers Thereof
268k186 Pay and Other Compensation
268k186(4) k. Effect of Absence, Removal, Suspension, or Expiration of Term. Most Cited Cases
Honorably discharged veteran police officer was entitled to leave of absence with pay on Veterans’ Day and Memorial Day as provided in Public Officers Law, but he was not entitled to additional compensation or time off pursuant to that Law by virtue of fact that those same holidays were also paid holidays under existing employment contract between county and police officers’ union of which he was member. Public Officers Law § 63. KeyCite Citing References for this Headnote
287III Representative and Class Actions
287III(C) Particular Classes Represented
287k35.63 k. Constitutional Challenges and Actions Against Government in General. Most Cited Cases
Court should not have granted class action relief where governmental operations were involved, in that granting of any relief to individual petitioner would result in comparable relief flowing to others similarly situated under principle of stare decisis.
**70 Howard E. Pachman, Suffolk County Atty., Hauppauge (Henry G. Wenzell, III, Asst. County Atty., Hauppauge, of counsel), for appellants.
Hartman & Alpert, Mineola, for respondent.
Before GULOTTA, P.J., and HOPKINS, MARTUSCELLO, LATHAM and SHAPIRO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
*797 In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, Inter alia to compel appellants to furnish certain veterans’ benefits to petitioner and to others similarly situated, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered March 26, 1975, which directed appellants to accord to petitioner, and all others similarly situated, the benefits provided by section 63 of the Public Officers Law.
Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting from the decretal paragraph thereof the matter following the words ‘granting to Petitioner’, and substituting therefore the following: ‘all of the benefits scheduled for veterans pursuant to section 63 of the Public Officers Law.’ As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. No fact questions were presented by this appeal. Petitioner, having served on active duty in the United States Army, and having been honorably discharged there from, is clearly entitled to a leave of absence with pay on Veterans’ Day and Memorial Day, as provided in section 63 of the Public Officers Law. However, he is not entitled to additional compensation or time off pursuant to that section by virtue of the fact that these same holidays are also paid holidays under the existing employment contract between the County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, of which he is a member. Whether, as a matter of contract interpretation, he may be entitled to additional compensation or time off pursuant to *798 the contract of employment is not properly before this court in an article 78 proceeding (see CPLR 7803).  As a matter of procedure, class action relief should not have been accorded herein (see Matter of Jones v. Berman, 37 N.Y.2d 42, 371 N.Y.S.2d 422, 332 N.E.2d 303; Matter of Rivera v. Trimarco, 36 N.Y.2d 747, 368 N.Y.S.2d 826, 329 N.E.2d 661; Matter of Scarpelli v. Lavine, 48 A.D.2d 899, 370 N.Y.S.2d 620).
Brady v. Kelley,
51 A.D.2d 797, 380 N.Y.S.2d 69