TOPICS
TOPICS
House committee backs health benefits, pay compression bills
The House Government Reform Committee Thursday unanimously approved measures calling for a study of expanding federal health benefits and implementing a system to ease pay compression for administrative law judges and certain senior-level employees.
The first measure, (H.R. 3751) requires OPM to submit a study to Congress that describes and evaluates currently available supplemental and additional dental, hearing and vision benefits and the costs of such benefits. Under the bill, OPM must then make recommendations for improvements in federal health benefits.
Hearing benefits and the screening for glaucoma to be included under the vision benefits were added to the bill under an amendment by Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., which passed without any objections. The amendment also established a new deadline of no later than six months after the bill is enacted for the study to be presented to Congress, instead of the original June 30, 2004 date.
Improved benefits are "an issue of great importance to federal employees," Rep. Jo Ann Davis, R-Va., said earlier this month when her Civil Service subcommittee marked up the bill. Industry representatives have said that federal dental and vision benefits fall below those offered in the private sector, Davis added.
Under the second measure (H.R. 3737), administrative law judges, members of contract appeals boards and certain senior level employees outside the Senior Executive Service could receive more pay.
The bill addresses situations where higher-paid workers stop getting raises because of a pay cap, resulting in compression of the overall pay scale.
Under the bill, administrative judges, appeals board members and senior level personnel could receive Executive Schedule Level III base pay of $158,100, plus locality pay. The pay cap was raised from the Level IV base pay of $145,600.
Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., introduced an amendment, which passed on a voice vote, that restored amendments passed by the Civil Service subcommittee last month. It adds contract appeals board members and certain senior level employees to those covered by the measure. And it requires OPM to examine the basic pay of Executive Schedule positions and submit a report to the House Government Reform Committee and the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
COMMENTS
- I hope the House Government Reform Committee will pursue this avenue for expanded benefits but expect in the end that to enroll in any additional plan it will cost another $50 bucks or more a pay period to benefit from it. The plan may be offered and the Committee will proudly say “there are your expanded benefits as you requested” but it will not be free, we WILL pay the majority, if not all, of the premium cost involved. Hope I'm wrong but let's see. As for the guy that received all the charges for the nasal scope procedures. The same happened to me. Two years ago those procedures were paid for 100% then about six months ago I had one performed from the same Doctor and was billed for over $100.00 for a procedure that lasted less than 30 seconds. When I asked about the charge the procedure was coded as outpatient SURGERY!!! I complained to the Doctor about this change in coding and fortunately he wrote off the charge for me. He told me that next time he would perform a CAT Scan and it would be covered by my insurance. What a total rip-off to all of us! No wonder our premiums are so high. The insurance won’t pay for a measly $100.00 scope procedure but will pay for a $1,500 CAT Scan. Hello to whoever is in charge! Please fix this blatant nonsense. Dave Posted April 4, 2004 11:01 PM
- Federal health benefits definitely need to improve. I was recently shafted by the surgeon and insurance company 6 times for a 30 second scope proceedure on my daughter's nose before and after her outpatient surgery. We were billed $660 ($110 each) since they said they were billed as "surgical" proceedures. The federal insurance paid a grand total of $10 each and said we were required to pay the remaining $600 in copays - this isn't right. Does anyone have a suggestion as to how I should remedy this? GovExec.com reader Posted April 2, 2004 11:01 AM
Clarification: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified the author of the two amendments. The article has been updated to reflect the change.
