TOPICS
TOPICS
Legislators clash over health care reform's impact on FEHBP
As House Democrats prepare to introduce new health care reform legislation this week, federal employees' health benefits once again became a political football in the debate over the bill. Sixteen Republican representatives wrote to Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., to demand that he schedule hearings on reform proposals' potential impact on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.
Their letter reiterated a request that Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking member on the oversight committee, made in July, asking Towns to explore whether FEHBP meets the requirements for a "qualified health benefits plan." Such plans would have to cover at least hospitalization; outpatient services; visits with doctors and other qualified health professionals; prescription drugs; treatment for physical rehabilitation, mental illness and substance abuse; preventative medicine; maternity care; and basic care for infants and children under age 21. Under a number of health care reform proposals, Americans would have to enroll in plans that have certain required characteristics, pay taxes for refusing to enroll, or move into a government-run health care program that has the required features.
Towns responded to Issa's initial request by noting that the House health care reform proposal under debate at the time had a five-year grace period that would allow health care plans to make changes to meet the definition of a "qualified health benefits plan." He said any changes to FEHBP would be minor and easy to accomplish within that grace period.
"I understand that some administrative and a small number of benefits-related adjustments would be necessary in 2018 in order for all of the individual plans offered under FEHBP to satisfy the applicable requirements of a qualified health benefits plan," Towns wrote in July. "However, there will not be a need for a significant overhaul of FEHBP."
In their letter on Wednesday, committee Republicans complained they "have not received an account of that work [Towns was doing on the health care reform bill], or further explanation of what the 'limited impact' on FEHBP actually entails."
Towns called their concern about federal employees' health care baseless, and said Republicans were trying to delay relevant hearings and votes on health care reform bills. Instead of being forced out of FEHBP because it doesn't meet the requirements, he said, federal employees would see improvements to their health care plans if reforms passed.
"Any suggestion that federal employees may be forced out of insurance coverage and subjected to an additional tax is false and has no basis in the text of the bill," Towns said in a statement. "Under [the bill Democrats are set to introduce], federal employees will remain in their current system, and will also benefit from the same improvements to health insurance plans that all other Americans will enjoy, such as ending co-payments for preventative medicine and automatic enrollment."
COMMENTS
- Mr. TAXPAYER: You are another private citizen who has never considered federal or civil service work (or maybe upset because you could not get in or qualify) because you figured you could make more money in private sector, and like most americans never thought twice about the sacrifices and disparities in salary, but like most lean times for the private sector, now you are jealous because we still retain our thankless positions and your big salaries are now in jeopardy. Bottom Line.. Career FED Posted November 12, 2009 9:24 AM
- Anyone that gets a federal paycheck, retired or otherwise will eventually be forced into the "government option". The FEHB program as it exists today will be eliminated to save administrative costs. Once this happens, the remaining insurance companies will go broke within a couple years and the private sector won't have any options. Anybody who doesn't see this happening a few years down the road is a fool. The sole purpose of the government option is to drive private insurance companies out of business. Segar Posted November 9, 2009 11:46 AM
- Mr. Ketter is right. Health benefits, and any other benefits received by federal employees or those in the private sector, should be taxed. This is income as these benefits have a value. So those federal employees who keep harping that they make less than the private sector for a comparable job - consider this: Most of us non-feds do not have retirement benefits (again I say most of us) - I know some very large corporations offer this - but far more of us work for corporations and small businesses that do not offer this. Do any of you feds quantify into your annual salary the amount of this deferred compensation? Transit/parking subsidies - those of you in the Washington DC area that receive this benefit, add it to your total compensation How about the lucrative vacation and sick time? More than most of the rest of us - add that dollar amount to your salary. Add the value of these benefits and other perks to your salary to see how much you really make. Yes - insurancce is going up - but it is going up for all of us - not just feds. At least you have, depending upon your agency and location, several plans to choose from. The rest of us, if insurance is offered, is not flexible. We have the one plan offered or we opt out. Taxpayer Posted November 6, 2009 10:21 AM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco
