Studier v. Michigan Public School Employees' Retirement Board

**What Happened** Michigan public school retirees sued the state retirement board after their health insurance benefits were changed. The retirees argued that increasing their copayments and deductibles violated their constitutional rights because these health benefits should be considered "accrued financial benefits" that couldn't be reduced under Michigan's Constitution. **What the Court Decided** Both the trial court and appeals court ruled against the retirees. The court found that health care benefits are not the same as "accrued financial benefits" under Michigan's Constitution. The judges also determined that even though the retirees had to pay higher copayments and deductibles, their overall share of the total health plan costs stayed roughly the same, so their benefits weren't actually reduced in a meaningful way. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling shows that retiree health benefits may not have the same constitutional protections as pension benefits. Public employees should understand that their employer might be able to change health insurance terms after retirement, including increasing out-of-pocket costs, as long as the overall value remains similar. Workers planning for retirement should consider this potential for health benefit changes when making financial decisions.