Government Executive - Pay & Benefits

The state of play around the 2027 pay raise, or lack thereof

Erich Wagner — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 16:55:28 -0400

President Trump is expected sometime this month to issue a plan to freeze federal employee pay in 2027, though if last year was any indication, it may not be that straightforward.

When the White House published its fiscal 2027 budget proposal in April, the document, which normally lays out the administration’s pay plan for the following year, was silent on civilian compensation. The Office of Management and Budget later confirmed that Trump was in fact proposing “no pay increase” for 2027, while military service members would see between a 5% and 7% raise, depending upon their rank.

Trump now has until the end of August to formalize his alternative pay plan for next year; otherwise, much larger automatic increases in locality pay would take effect, due to a formula in the 1990 Federal Pay Comparability Act that has been criticized by presidents of both parties since its enactment.

Congress thus far has not taken action to overrule Trump’s pay plan. The House’s fiscal 2027 financial services and general government appropriations bill is silent on federal employee pay—effectively endorsing the president’s plan. And while the Senate has not yet published its draft of the FSGG funding bill, lawmakers in that chamber have proposed reducing the military pay raise to an across-the-board 3.6% raise as part of its proposed 2027 National Defense Authorization Act.

Democrats in both the House and Senate have called for a more fulsome raise of 4.1% on average next year, as part of their annual advocacy for the Fair Adjustment of Income Rates Act. Under that plan, civilian federal employees would receive a 3.1% increase in basic pay, coupled with an average 1% increase in locality pay.

While Trump is expected to formalize his plan for a pay freeze later this month, it’s not a sure thing. Last year, the president’s so-called “skinny” budget was also silent on federal employees pay, while OMB documents to agencies instructed them to plan for a pay freeze in 2026.

But ultimately, the president’s alternative pay plan enacted a 1% across-the-board increase in basic pay and no increase in locality pay for most workers. Feds in “law enforcement” fields were granted a 3.8% raise, in line with the increase afforded to military service members in 2026.

More changes to federal compensation could be in the offing in the coming months, as the Office of Personnel Management has signaled it plans to issue new regulations governing the locality pay system.

]]>

Former feds have a new way to find their personnel files

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 15:00:00 -0400

One of my colleagues, retirement benefits expert Michele Bollier, who answers emails from members of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, was helping a retiree and discovered more good news coming from the Office of Personnel Management.

The agency has taken an important step toward modernizing access to federal personnel records with a new resource called the eOPF Resource Center and the recent launch of the eOPF Documents Request Service.

The electronic Official Personnel Folder, or eOPF, began 20 years ago when the National Finance Center payroll provider started sending SF-50s, Personnel Action Statements, and transactions to the eOPF system for processing. Scanned documents from paper Official Personnel Folders began being added to eOPF in 2007. Two decades have passed since the Commerce Department implemented an e-government initiative that provided easier and faster access for current employees to their personnel files.

Now, if you are a former federal employee or retiree looking for personnel records from your eOPF, there is a new and faster way to request them.

For current and former federal employees, the “electronic Official Personnel Folder,” or eOPF, is more than an administrative archive. It is the official record of federal employment, containing documents such as SF-50s, appointment and separation actions, position changes, benefits-related forms and other records that may be needed years after someone leaves government service.

For many former employees, getting these records has historically been frustrating. Once an employee separated, online access to the agency eOPF system generally ended, leaving the former employee to contact a previous agency human resources office or submit a written request to the National Personnel Records Center.

OPM’s new resources are designed to make that process clearer and, for many people, faster.

The most significant new resource is the Documents Request Service, a secure, public-facing portal. The service allows eligible separated federal employees to request and receive a copy of their eOPF employment folder electronically.

OPM describes the tool as a self-service option that eliminates the need for former employees to rely on government networks, agency-issued credentials or manual paper-based fulfillment methods when their records are already maintained in eOPF.

Being a former federal employee, I decided to try out this new service. I had my doubts since I left federal service in 1988 and doubted that anyone had scanned my old personnel records into the eOPF system. I was right: There were no records.

However, I was reminded that to sign into the Login.gov system, you will need to scan your driver’s license or passport into the system and then provide your Social Security number as further identification that it is you who is trying to log in.

If you are informed that the system could not find your records, you should check the information you entered and try again. Common mistakes are an incorrect Social Security number or ZIP code. You can try it four more times. Then you must wait six hours before trying again.

The service is intended primarily for separated federal employees whose records are in eOPF. It may also be used by current federal employees who do not have government-furnished equipment, a PIV card, a government email address or secure access to their agency’s eOPF system.

It is not intended for current employees who already have normal access through their agency, third-party requesters, the public or individuals whose records were never maintained in the eOPF system.

Former employees who want to use the Documents Request Service should generally wait at least 30 days after their separation date before submitting a request. OPM advises this waiting period because final separation documents, including the SF-50 documenting separation, may not be profiled into the eOPF immediately. Requesting too early could result in an incomplete folder.

OPM’s user guidance says the file should be downloaded and saved promptly because the link expires after 24 hours. The password format described in OPM’s guide uses the employee’s date of birth and the last four digits of the Social Security number.

Because the file contains sensitive personnel information, former employees should save it in a secure location and avoid forwarding it through unsecured email.

In case your records can’t be retrieved through this new system, OPM points users to more traditional options: Contact the former employing agency or request records from the National Personnel Records Center. NPRC maintains official personnel folders for many former federal civilian employees whose service ended after 1951. These records remain subject to the Privacy Act, so access is restricted.

The person of record may request copies of most civilian personnel records, including SF-50s, by submitting a written, signed and dated request. The request should include identifying information such as full name, date of birth, Social Security number, last employing agency, duty station, approximate dates of employment and a clear description of the records needed.

Timing is important here as well. NPRC guidance notes that OPFs are generally retired to the center after separation. If not enough time has passed, the former employee may need to contact the last employing agency instead.

OPM’s post-separation FAQ also explains that eOPF records are often transferred from the former agency to NPRC within 30 to 60 days after the separation action is processed, though an agency may retain the eOPF longer. If the agency still has the folder, it may be required to provide physical copies upon request.

For older personnel records, former employees should understand the difference between non-archival and archival OPFs.

NPRC’s Federal Records Center Program maintains OPFs for former federal civilian employees whose employment ended after 1951. These files generally remain in OPM’s legal custody and are protected by the Privacy Act, which means the person of record, or an authorized third party with signed consent, is usually the proper requester.

Civilian employment records are normally transferred to NPRC within 120 days after separation. If fewer than 120 days have passed, the employee should write to the last employing agency instead.

A written NPRC request should be signed and dated and should clearly identify the records needed, such as the most recent SF-50 or the complete official personnel folder. To help NPRC locate the file, the request should include the full name used during federal employment, date of birth, Social Security number if applicable, employing agency name and location, duty station and approximate beginning and ending dates of service.

Records for federal civilian employees whose service ended before 1952 follow a different archival access process through the National Archives. Those older OPFs may be handled as archival holdings rather than current federal records, so requesters should use National Archives guidance for archival civilian personnel folders.

In practical terms, a former employee seeking older records should first determine the approximate separation date: After 1951 generally points to NPRC’s non-archival OPF process, while before 1952 points to the archival OPF process.

Access to personnel records is not just a matter of convenience. Former employees may need their SF-50s and related documents to verify prior federal service, apply for another federal position, resolve pay or leave questions, support a retirement or benefits claim, confirm military service credit or assist with a security clearance review.

Having an easier electronic path to these documents can reduce delays at moments when former employees may be facing deadlines or life transitions.

The new eOPF resources also reinforce a best practice: Employees should review and download important records before leaving federal service whenever possible. It is much easier to identify missing or incorrect documents while still employed and while agency HR staff can correct problems directly.

Before separation, employees should check key documents such as SF-50s, service computation dates, beneficiary forms, military deposit records, retirement coverage and benefits elections. Any discrepancies should be raised with HR before access ends.

OPM’s updated eOPF Resource Center and Documents Request Service give former federal employees a clearer roadmap for obtaining personnel records after leaving government. The best approach is to start with the new portal if eligible, wait long enough for final separation documents to be added, download the completed folder promptly and keep the records secure. If the portal cannot locate the folder, the next step is to contact the former agency or submit a written request to NPRC. Together, these resources should make it easier for former employees to prove their service, protect their benefits and manage federal employment records long after their last day on the job.

]]>

TSP investments continued to tumble in July

Erich Wagner — Tue, 04 Aug 2026 14:22:19 -0400

Most funds offered as part of the federal government’s 401(k)-style retirement savings program finished July in the red, continuing the downward trend that began the prior month.

Only the Thrift Savings Plan’s G Fund, which is made up of government securities, grew last month, increasing by its statutorily mandated rate of 0.39%. So far this year, the G Fund has gained 2.57% in value.

The common stocks of the C Fund were virtually flat in July, falling 0.07% and bringing its 2026 performance down to 10.13%. And the international (I) fund lost 1.01% last month; since January, the I Fund is up 15.35%.

The small- and mid-size businesses of the S Fund finished July 4.12% in the red. So far this year, the S Fund has gained 13.52%. And the fixed income (F) Fund lost 1.29% last month, bringing its 2026 losses to 0.56%.

Each of the TSP’s lifecycle (L) funds, which shift toward more conservative investments as participants approach retirement age, likewise lost ground in July. The L Income Fund, designed for those who have already begun making withdrawals, fell 0.06%; L 2030, 0.41%; L 2035, 0.57%; L 2040, 0.66%; L 2045, 0.73%; L 2050, 0.79%; L 2055, 0.92%; L 2060, 0.92%; L 2065, 0.92%; L 2070, 0.92%; and L 2075, 0.92%.

So far this year, the L Income Fund has grown 5.18%; L 2030, 7.89%; L 2035, 8.93%; L 2040, 9.48%; L 2045, 10.45%; L 2050, 12.36%; L 2055, 12.36%; L 2060, 12.36%; L 2065, 12.36%; L 2070, 12.36%; and L 2075, 12.36%.

]]>

LGBTQ+ feds sue to restore FEHB coverage of gender affirming care

Erich Wagner — Mon, 03 Aug 2026 17:18:35 -0400

A group of five federal employees filed a class action lawsuit against the Office of Personnel Management Monday, alleging that the agency’s cancellation of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage of gender affirming medical treatments amounts to unlawful sex discrimination.

When President Trump returned to office in January 2025, he signed an executive order requiring agencies to cease recognizing the concept of “gender identity” or the existence of transgender or otherwise gender non-conforming people. At OPM, implementation included instructing insurance carriers participating in the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs to cease covering gender-affirming care in most cases beginning last January.

The pseudonymous plaintiffs, four transgender or non-binary federal employees and one employee whose daughter is transgender, said they face medical bills in the tens of thousands of dollars if forced to pay out of pocket for the hormonal and surgical treatments their doctors have prescribed.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., alleges violations of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and describes the gender-affirming care ban as “akin to denying continuing insulin treatment for someone with diabetes.” And the treatments sought by transgender or gender non-conforming employees are still approved in other contexts for cisgender workers and beneficiaries.

“[OPM’s] carrier letters discriminate on the basis of sex on their face,” the lawsuit states. “[The first letter] excludes ‘chemical and surgical modification of an individual’s sex traits through medical interventions (to include “gender transition” services)’ from FEHB and PSHB coverage. This exclusion targets gender-affirming care—care that is sought by transgender and gender non-conforming people—and thereby singles out current and former employees for less favorable treatment and fewer employment benefits than accorded their non-transgender counterparts.”

Under 2024 Supreme Court precedent, discrimination on the basis of someone’s gender identity is unlawful under Title VII, though the executive order underlying this case itself advocates for Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., to be overturned. Federal judges have blocked that edict’s implementation by a number of agencies, including the U.S. Bureau of Prisons in regard to its treatment of transgender inmates, though the agency violated that order last week.

Representing the plaintiffs are the Human Rights Campaign Foundation as well as former Merit Systems Protection Board Member Cathy Harris. Attorneys estimated that nearly 40,000 federal employees, retirees or dependents could be impacted by OPM’s gender affirming care ban.

“Healthcare access should never be weaponized to advance discrimination—and the denial of coverage for critical healthcare based simply on who you are blatantly violates the rights of all of us,” said HRCF President Kelley Robinson. “This odious policy is the latest example of the Trump administration’s obsession with targeting transgender people, using shameful and cruel tactics to threaten their employment, their health and the well-being of themselves and their families.”

“Federal employees have been through the wringer with the Trump administration,” Harris said. “We draw the line at blatant discrimination to deny healthcare to our nation’s dedicated civil servants.”

OPM did not respond to a request for comment.

]]>

Why time, not timing, is the biggest retirement advantage for federal employees

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 30 Jul 2026 15:00:00 -0400

As most federal employees covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) know, a comfortable retirement cannot rely on the FERS basic retirement benefit alone. FERS is built on three parts working together to produce a financially comfortable retirement: the basic retirement benefit, Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Of those three, the TSP is the part employees can most directly influence through payroll contributions, investment choices and time in the market. That is why understanding compounding is not just a financial concept. It is a practical career-long strategy.

It is amazing to learn that the largest TSP account balance was $10,820,000 as of the end of June. However, at the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's July board meeting, the reported average TSP account balance for June was $157,412, with the average participant contributing for nearly 11 years. Yet most accounts — 4,095,134 of them — were still under $50,000, with an average contribution history of a little more than six years.

The contrast is important: Balances tend to grow most visibly after years of steady saving, reinvested earnings and market participation.

For accounts between $500,000 and $749,000, the average number of years contributed was 21.96 years.
For accounts between $750,000 and $999,000, the average number of years contributed was 23.85 years.
For accounts of $1,000,000 or more, the average number of years contributed was 27.25 years.

Note: Values include FERS, CSRS and uniformed services accounts.

These numbers are a practical reminder that retirement wealth is built through repeated contributions, agency matching dollars, long-term investment discipline and the compounding of earnings over many years. Compounding is the process of earning money not only on contributions but also on prior earnings. In a retirement account, that means the earliest dollars have the longest runway. A contribution made in the first decade of a federal career can potentially benefit from decades of market returns, reinvested growth and additional agency contributions.

For eligible FERS employees, the agency contribution makes early and consistent saving even more powerful. FERS employees receive an automatic 1% agency contribution to the TSP, along with dollar-for-dollar matching contributions on the first 3% of basic pay they contribute and an additional 50 cents on the dollar on the fourth and fifth percent of employee contributions. Setting your savings at 5% or higher is the key to receiving the full available agency match. Missing that match means giving up retirement money today and the future growth that money could have produced.

As of May 31, the C Fund held more than $500 billion of the TSP's total assets, representing a 43.9% share of all TSP fund assets.

As of June 30, 2026, the top companies in the S&P 500 Index, which the TSP's C Fund is designed to track, were dominated by technology and communication services companies, including Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Broadcom, Micron, Meta and Tesla.

Sector weightings showed information technology at 38.0%, followed by financials at 11.8%, communication services at 9.7%, consumer discretionary at 9.3%, industrials and health care at 8.9% each and smaller allocations across consumer staples, energy, utilities, materials and real estate.

The lesson is to participate consistently through a diversified strategy that can benefit as market leaders shift over time. According to S&P Global, the S&P 500 currently represents approximately 83% of total U.S. market capitalization. This broad coverage enables it to closely track the performance of the overall U.S. equity market. The largest companies in the index account for a substantial share of its total market capitalization, giving them the greatest influence on the index's performance.

Consider the performance of the following investments over time:

A $1,000 investment in the S&P 500 made 20 years ago would be worth more than $8,500 today. In 2006, the maximum elective deferral limit was $15,000. Investing $15,000 in the C Fund 20 years ago would be worth around $127,500 today.
A $1,000 investment in Nvidia 20 years ago would be worth more than $560,000 today. Interestingly, Nvidia officially joined the S&P 500 on Nov. 29, 2001, replacing Enron.
A $1,000 investment in Apple 20 years ago would be worth about $130,000 today.
A $1,000 investment in Microsoft at its 1986 initial public offering would be worth roughly $6.46 million today. A $1,000 investment made 20 years ago would be worth approximately $20,088.
A $1,000 investment in Amazon 20 years ago would be worth roughly $90,000 to $135,000 today.
A $1,000 investment in Broadcom 20 years ago would be worth approximately $254,613 today.

These examples are not recommendations for buying individual stocks, as past performance cannot predict future results. Buying individual stocks for retirement is risky because it lacks diversification, demands intensive research and introduces high emotional volatility. In the TSP, most federal employees pursue this kind of long-term growth through diversified funds, such as the C, S, I, F and G Funds, or through Lifecycle Funds that adjust allocations across all five core funds over time.

Looking back to 1980 — a year that was personal for me because I got married, moved to Washington, D.C., and was just beginning my career at age 22 — the leading companies looked very different:

IBM, then the index heavyweight in information technology. If you put $1,000 into IBM stock 20 years ago, it would be worth about $5,700 today.
AT&T, the pre-divestiture telecommunications monopoly.
Exxon, now part of ExxonMobil.
Standard Oil of Indiana, later Amoco and eventually part of BP.
Schlumberger, an energy and oil field services company.
Shell Oil, part of the energy sector.
Mobil, later merged with Exxon.
Standard Oil of California, later Chevron.
Atlantic Richfield, known as ARCO, was later acquired by BP.
General Electric, an industrial leader.

The point is not that one sector is always best. In 1980, energy and oil service companies dominated the top 10. Today, technology and communication services carry much more weight. Federal employees who save steadily in diversified TSP funds do not have to know in advance which companies will lead the next generation. They simply need a contribution plan, an allocation appropriate for their age and risk tolerance and the patience to let compounding work.

Here are some things you can do to prepare for your future retirement:

Contribute at least 5% if you are eligible for the full FERS match. The match is part of your compensation and can compound along with your own contributions. The May TSP Activity Report indicated that 86.6% of FERS employees contributed at least 5% of their basic pay to receive the full match.
Increase contributions when pay increases. Even small increases can become meaningful over a full federal career.
Know the annual limits. For 2026, the TSP elective deferral limit is $24,500. FERS employees age 50 and older may make up to $8,000 in additional catch-up contributions, with a higher catch-up opportunity of $11,250 for those ages 60 through 63.

The following two things can be done automatically by investing in the TSP Lifecycle Fund that matches your time horizon (an investment time horizon is the period during which an investment is expected to be held to achieve financial goals):

Stay diversified. Market leadership changes. Diversification helps reduce the risk of relying too heavily on one company or sector.
Review your allocation periodically. Your investment mix should reflect your time horizon, risk tolerance and retirement income needs.

Do not wait for the perfect time. The most valuable ingredient in compounding is time, and time cannot be replaced later.

Federal service comes with a valuable retirement framework, but the strength of that framework depends in part on the actions you take throughout your career. The FERS annuity and Social Security provide important foundations. The TSP gives employees the opportunity to build personal retirement wealth through disciplined saving, agency contributions, diversified investing and compounding.

A trip down memory lane shows that markets evolve, leaders change and time rewards consistency. For federal employees, the most important step may be the simplest: Start saving, keep saving and give compounding enough years to do the heavy lifting.

]]>

NARFE still has concerns with OPM’s plan to collect employee health care records

Erich Wagner — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:18:06 -0400

The National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association on Thursday said the Office of Personnel Management still has not sufficiently protected federal workers and retirees as part of a plan to collect claims-level health data in an effort to root out fraud.

Last December, OPM published an information collection request that would require insurers who participate in the Federal Employee Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs to provide monthly reports with identifiable health data on their enrollees, prompting concerns from ethicists, health care providers, employee groups and lawmakers alike.

In response to those concerns, OPM published a revised proposal last month, purporting to take steps to mask employees and retirees’ identities in the data collection. In an accompanying blog post, OPM Director Scott Kupor described how the anti-fraud effort would still protect workers’ privacy.

“In layman’s terms, OPM’s [Office of Inspector General] . . . will provide an encrypted copy of that data to OPM—but only after stripping out names, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, addresses (except for ZIP codes) and other personally identifiable data,” he wrote. “The only member-level [personally identifiable information] fields that will remain in the data that OPM receives will be our members’ ZIP codes, year of birth and their member ID. To further sanitize these records, OPM will scramble, or pseudonymize, the member ID information using a state-of-the-art cryptographic hashing process, replacing member ID with a random set of numbers and characters that is divorced from the real identity of the plan participant.”

But in a letter to Kupor Thursday, NARFE National President William Shackelford said that while his organization appreciates the steps taken thus far to shield FEHBP and PSHBP participants’ identities, he remains troubled by OPM’s insistence that it be able to re-identify employees via their health records in the future. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, health care data should be not just pseudonymized, but de-identified entirely, he wrote.

“NARFE’s position is straightforward. OPM has moved in the right direction,” Shackelford wrote. “But we asked for de-identified data and OPM has offered pseudonymized data, and those are not the same commitment. Pseudonymization does not remove the risk that our members’ health information will be linked back to them; it makes that linkage a matter of OPM’s discretion, exercisable by whoever holds the relevant authority in any future administration.”

Additionally, most of OPM’s reassurances about privacy and the data collection’s anti-fraud purpose exist solely within Kupor’s blog post, and not the proposal published in the Federal Register last month.

“What remains is otherwise the difference between description and obligation,” Shackelford wrote. “We ask OPM to convert what it has described into what it is bound to do: de-identification as the default and pseudonymization as the justified exception, mandatory rather than discretionary safeguards, hard separation of key material from enrollment files . . . and an explicit prohibition on personnel-related use.”

]]>

Why your retirement experience may depend more on the agency than the benefit

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:00:00 -0400

As federal employees transition into retirement, they also transition from familiar routines. After many years, if not many decades, of knowing where to go when it is time to access or change their federal benefits, retirement creates a need to learn new methods of communicating with new organizations. For health benefits, life insurance and, most importantly, retirement, the Office of Personnel Management becomes the new "personnel" shop for recent retirees. To turn on Social Security retirement benefits, learning to navigate the Social Security Administration's website and phone system becomes very important.

Instead of watching their lifetime retirement savings continue to grow, it is now time to figure out how to turn those investments into a stream of income that must last for many years and often several decades to come. These organizations provide customer service to help answer questions and guide new annuitants as they learn the ropes of life after retirement. Customer service is the help and support these individuals will rely on before, during and after their service to the federal government comes to an end. In anticipation of a smooth and enjoyable experience, there is an element of not knowing what to expect and the fear that something might go wrong.

For federal employees and retirees, customer service is not an abstract measure of government performance. It determines how quickly a new retiree receives their full annuity, whether a participant can resolve a Thrift Savings Plan account problem and how long a Social Security beneficiary must wait for help with a benefit issue. Recent statistics suggest three very different customer service stories. OPM's Retirement Services operation is still judged largely by claims-processing time and backlog. The Thrift Savings Plan, administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, reports comparatively strong participant satisfaction and short telephone wait times. The Social Security Administration serves a much broader public and has recently shown measurable improvement in telephone service, though its reported averages can mask long waits for some callers.

OPM Retirement Services has one of the most consequential service roles in the federal benefits ecosystem: converting a retiring employee's application into interim and then final annuity payments. The most recent OPM retirement processing data show the scale of the challenge. OPM reported that it experienced a historic surge in retirements in 2025 and responded by expanding the team. However, overall, Retirement Services shrunk 16% from fiscal 2024 to fiscal 2026.

That higher volume matters because retirement processing is document-heavy, depends on agency and payroll office submissions and can be delayed by missing or inconsistent records.

OPM's June 2026 retirement processing report illustrates both improvement and strain. In June, the agency received 8,663 new retirement claims, of which 6,852 were digital and 1,811 were paper. It processed 12,751 total claims that month, but the total inventory still stood at 33,851 pending cases.

The average processing time for all cases was 108 days in June, while digital cases were processed in 96 days and paper claims in 120 days. For the fiscal year to date, the average processing time was 77 days, and the fiscal-year-to-date digital processing time was 52 days. These numbers show why digital retirement processing is central to OPM's service strategy: Digital cases are faster, but the transition is incomplete, and paper cases continue to slow the system.

Compared with the other two agencies, OPM's service problem is the most specialized and the most procedural. The customer may contact OPM for status updates, but the real service outcome is whether the retirement claim is adjudicated accurately and quickly. A retiree waiting months for a finalized annuity may see the process as poor customer service even if phone representatives are courteous. OPM's published data also make clear that modernization is producing benefits, but not yet enough to eliminate large inventories or long waits during claim surges.

The TSP presents a different customer service profile. The TSP is massive. Recent reports show more than 7.3 million accounts and assets surpassing $1 trillion, yet its service statistics are notably favorable. In recent years, the TSP said it issued more than 1 million Forms 1099-R and notified more than 300,000 participants about required minimum distributions.

The March 2026 board materials showed that in February, the ThriftLine received approximately 200,000 calls, with an average waiting time to reach an agent of 11 seconds and 95% of callers waiting 20 seconds or less. Overall participant satisfaction with the ThriftLine exceeded 93% for the 12th consecutive month.

In the May report, it was noted that participants logged in about 4 million times to My Account through the Thrift Savings Plan mobile app during April, accounting for 42% of all TSP logins, up from 32% one year earlier. In April, TSP participants completed nearly 7,000 Roth in-plan conversions totaling approximately $135 million.

These statistics suggest that, among the three organizations, TSP currently offers the strongest measurable front-end customer experience. Its service channels are designed around account access, transactions, withdrawals, loans, beneficiary issues and investment elections. While individual participants may still encounter complex cases, especially around post-separation withdrawals or legal processing, the published service metrics point to a system that is answering calls quickly and satisfying most users who interact with it. The TSP also benefits from a narrower mission than SSA and a more account-based operating model than OPM Retirement Services.

The Social Security Administration is not directly comparable in scale. It serves more than 300 million people with active Social Security numbers and more than 71 million beneficiaries. Its customer service challenge spans retirement, disability, survivors, Medicare-related services, Social Security numbers, overpayments, appeals and in-person field office needs. SSA reports that online and telephone channels now account for most customer contacts, with online services increasingly emphasized through my Social Security accounts and digital transactions.

Recent SSA data show meaningful improvement, especially on the National 800 Number. The agency reported that, compared with service levels in May 2025, reductions in wait times through May 2026 saved the public an estimated 14.2 million hours: 7.6 million through online services, 4.9 million through the National 800 Number and 1.7 million through field office calls and visits. SSA also said it had served 5.9 million more callers in the fiscal year to date, an increase of more than 29% compared with prior years.

An inspector general audit released in December 2025 found that SSA's publicly reported National 800 Number metrics were accurate and that overall telephone service improved in fiscal 2025. The report said SSA served 68 million callers through employees or automation, a 65% increase from fiscal 2024. The average speed of answer was 13 minutes in October 2024, peaked at 30 minutes in January 2025 and fell to 7 minutes by September 2025. That was an improvement over fiscal 2024, when the peak was about 42 minutes and the low was 12 minutes.

Still, SSA's statistics require careful interpretation. The inspector general noted that the average speed of answer does not capture the full wait experienced by every caller. If a caller accepted a callback, SSA counted the call as having zero wait time for that metric, while the later callback delay was tracked separately.

For callers who stayed on hold in fiscal 2025, average queue wait time was about 51 minutes in October 2024, peaked at 1 hour and 40 minutes in January 2025 and fell to 19 minutes in September 2025. Average callback time was about 1 hour and 49 minutes in October 2024, peaked at 2 hours and 32 minutes in January 2025 and declined to about 1 hour and 2 minutes in September 2025. In other words, SSA improved significantly, but some customers still experienced long waits.

Measured by speed and satisfaction, the TSP appears to be performing best. Its recent reported wait times are measured in seconds, and satisfaction has remained above 93% for at least a year. Measured by breadth of service and volume handled, SSA faces the hardest public-facing challenge and has shown the largest recent improvement. Its phone metrics improved substantially in fiscal 2025 and continued to show gains into 2026, but its callback and queue-wait details reveal that averages can understate the experience of customers with complicated needs.

Measured by the consequences of delay, OPM Retirement Services may present the highest anxiety for its customers. A delayed TSP transaction or SSA phone call is frustrating, but a delayed federal annuity calculation can affect a retiree's monthly income for months.

The fairest conclusion is that each organization's customer service record reflects its mission and operating model. TSP service is the most consistently positive in the available statistics, aided by a transactional account structure and strong call center performance. SSA is the most improved, but because it serves nearly the entire public and handles highly varied benefit issues, it remains vulnerable to congestion and uneven experiences. OPM Retirement Services is making progress through digital retirement processing, but its backlog and processing times remain the most visible pain point for federal retirees.

For employees approaching retirement, the practical lesson is clear: Prepare paperwork early, use digital tools where available, monitor account access before separation and keep expectations realistic. The best customer service among the three is currently at the TSP, the most improved is SSA and the most urgent modernization challenge remains OPM retirement processing.

]]>

OPM moves to implement long-awaited retirement fix for federal first responders

Erich Wagner — Tue, 21 Jul 2026 17:27:51 -0400

The Office of Personnel Management is set to propose new rules this week implementing a 2022 law aimed at reforming retirement benefits for federal first responders who are injured during their service and forced to pursue jobs elsewhere in government.

Federal workers in professions like law enforcement and firefighting participate in the federal government’s defined benefit retirement program on an accelerated basis—in exchange for paying more toward their pensions each paycheck, they become eligible for their full annuity once they have served 20 years and reached age 50. They are also subject to mandatory retirement at age 57.

But if a federal first responder is injured on the job and unable to continue in their current role, they lose access to the accelerated retirement timeline, despite the increased payments they have already made along the way.

A proposed rule set for publication Wednesday in the Federal Register would implement the First Responder Fair RETIRE Act, a 2022 law aimed at fixing this flaw. The legislation allows first responders forced to take a job elsewhere in the federal government to continue to pay accelerated contributions and reach retirement when they originally planned. And it grants feds the chance to be refunded the extra half-percentage point of their salary that went toward retirement if they leave federal service altogether prior to reaching retirement age.

The regulations establish criteria by which an employee may be eligible to retain their accelerated retirement timeline after returning to federal service following an injury: the employee must be serving as a law enforcement or Customs and Border Protection officer, firefighter, air traffic controller, nuclear material courier, or members of the Capital or Supreme Court police; their injury must be the “direct result” of something that happened while they were performing their duties; they must be “permanently unable” to serve in their original post; and they must not yet be eligible for voluntary or mandatory retirement.

But OPM hesitated at implementing Section 2 of the law, a “sense of Congress” statement in favor of retaining national security workers and their institutional knowledge.

“It is in the best national and homeland security interests of the United States for federal agencies to retain the specialized knowledge and expertise of individuals who suffer an injury or illness while serving in a covered position (as defined under the amendments made by this act),” the law states. “Federal agencies should ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that an individual who can no longer carry out the duties of a covered position, and is reappointed to a position in the civil service that is not a covered position, is reappointed within the same federal agency, in the same geographic location, and at a level of pay commensurate to the position which the individual held immediately prior to such injury or illness."

"Section 2 provides guiding principles for interpreting the statute, but it does not convey authority to issue regulations to achieve the stated objectives or to take other actions not otherwise permitted by law,” OPM wrote. “OPM has broad authority to regulate the [Civil Service Retirement System] and the [Federal Employees Retirement System]. Nonetheless, that regulatory authority is limited to regulations that are necessary to ‘carry out’ subchapter III of chapter 83 (the CSRS law) and chapter 84 (the FERS law). Section 2 is not part of those laws.”

Nonetheless, OPM said it would seek to implement at least the second half of the sense of Congress statement through other regulations governing workplace injuries.

“However, the Sense of Congress can be connected to the requirements in . . . a provision in the federal employee workers’ compensation law that provides for reemployment and retention rights for individuals who resume employment after overcoming injury or disability,” the rule states. “[If] it is not possible to reemploy the employee in a position in the same employing agency, that agency should seek OPM assistance with placing the employee.”

OPM is soliciting public comments on its proposal until September 30.

]]>

Why Social Security's uncertainty is becoming a federal workforce issue

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 16 Jul 2026 15:00:00 -0400

This week, Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Bill Cassidy, R-La., Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Angus King, I-Maine, introduced a bipartisan proposal to encourage congressional action on Social Security: the Protecting Retirement Opportunities and Maintaining Income Security for Everyone, or PROMISE, Act.

The PROMISE Act tackles the long-term finances of Social Security's retirement program by moving reform out of endless discussion and into an actual legislative process. The bill itself does not raise payroll taxes, reduce benefits, change the retirement age or alter eligibility rules. Instead, it creates a framework in which those options, or some combination of them, could be evaluated, amended and put to a vote.

The Social Security 2026 Trustees Report was released earlier this year and showed that within six years, if Congress does nothing, Social Security income will cover only about 78% of scheduled retirement benefits. That warning is especially consequential for federal employees covered under the Federal Employees Retirement System because FERS was built on three coordinated sources of retirement income: the FERS basic benefit, Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan. For federal workers, Social Security reform is not an abstract national budget debate. It directly affects retirement timing, income planning, TSP savings decisions and confidence in the federal retirement promise.

Because FERS employees pay Social Security taxes and rely on Social Security for a meaningful share of retirement income, changes to the program's solvency, claiming rules, disability protections or benefit formulas can directly affect their retirement planning. Understanding the role Social Security plays in that plan is essential. It helps employees estimate lifetime income, decide when to claim benefits, determine how much to save in the TSP, evaluate survivor and disability protections and judge whether they can afford to retire at a particular age.

Social Security's YouTube channel has a variety of recorded training videos that explain what to know before signing up, earnings limits, how survivor benefits work, how to change your address and even the history of Social Security.

Social Security planning is especially important for retirees who receive the FERS retirement annuity supplement, which is designed to bridge the gap between federal retirement and first eligibility for Social Security. According to OPM, the supplement stops at the end of the month before a retiree turns 62, even if the retiree chooses not to apply for Social Security at that time. As a result, some federal retirees may feel financial pressure to claim Social Security as soon as they become eligible at age 62 to replace the income lost when the supplement ends. Others may choose to delay claiming to achieve a higher monthly benefit, but only if their TSP savings, FERS annuity, spouse's income or other resources can cover the gap.

A 2025 poll released by the Bipartisan Policy Center on Social Security's 90th anniversary underscores why reform has broad public urgency. The survey, commissioned by BPC's American Savings Education Council and conducted by Public First, found that 93% of Americans consider Social Security a valuable federal program and 83% believe addressing its challenges should be a top priority for Congress.

The same poll found deep anxiety about the program's future: 74% of respondents were concerned Social Security could run out before they retire, 80% worried Congress would cut benefits and 41% expected Social Security to be their primary source of retirement income. For federal employees covered under FERS, Social Security is not a supplemental benefit. It is one of the system's three core retirement pillars. If workers broadly fear benefit reductions or insolvency, FERS employees have reason to reassess retirement dates, TSP contribution levels, survivor planning and assumptions about post-retirement income.

The poll therefore reinforces that Social Security reform is not only a national retirement issue but also a direct workforce and financial security issue for current and future federal retirees. The findings also showed bipartisan appetite for action, with majorities of Democrats and Republicans agreeing that lawmakers should work across party lines to strengthen the program.

The current funding debate also echoes the Social Security crisis of 1982, but with an important difference in timing and scale. In the early 1980s, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund was projected to run out of money as early as August 1983, leaving the program only months away from being unable to pay full benefits on time. That emergency led to the Greenspan Commission and the 1983 Social Security Amendments, a bipartisan package that accelerated payroll tax increases, delayed cost-of-living adjustments, taxed some benefits, gradually raised the full retirement age and brought newly hired federal employees into Social Security.

Today's crisis is less immediate but potentially harder to solve. Trust fund depletion is still several years away, yet the long-term gap between scheduled benefits and dedicated payroll tax revenue is larger and driven by demographic pressures that have been building for decades. The lesson for today is that waiting until the last minute may preserve political convenience, but it narrows the choices available to workers, retirees and federal employees who need time to adjust their retirement plans.

The PROMISE Act would not guarantee a particular outcome, but it could make it harder for lawmakers to postpone decisions indefinitely. The bill would create a structured congressional process for developing and voting on a long-term Social Security solvency plan.

]]>

No more paper: Navigating OPM’s new digital retirement process

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 15:00:00 -0400

OPM recently announced that over 95% of retirement applications are now submitted electronically, signaling an end to an agency long defined by physical files, snail mail and manual data entry. With the full launch of the Online Retirement Application (ORA), OPM has officially reached its "Last Day of Paper." While June figures are still pending, May data showed that digital submissions already accounted for 70% to 75% of all applications.

The mission behind ORA is simple: make retirement seamless. By eliminating the physical transport of documents between agencies and payroll offices, the digital system provides better tracking and slashes the risk of human error — the kind that often crops up during manual processing.

The scale of this shift is massive. OPM reports that ORA managed more than 155,000 applications last year. To put that in perspective, processing over 100,000 new retirees in a single year is a rare feat — it has only happened nine times since 2000 — including high-volume years like 2013 and 2025.

While the 2025 data is currently missing totals from November and December, early indicators for 2026 suggest the momentum is holding steady, with nearly 100,000 claims processed through May.

It is possible that OPM's numbers include claims still being worked on. Early data for 2026 suggests another busy year — with nearly 100,000 claims processed through May.

Efficiency is also on the rise. Between January and May, digital claims were finalized in 34 to 66 days on average — a significant improvement over traditional paper-based methods.

October:

Digital claims processed: 1,686 in an average of 45 days

Total claims processed: 8,751 in an average of 79 days

November:

Digital claims processed: 4,363 in an average of 38 days

Total claims processed: 8,707 in an average of 66 days

December:

Digital claims processed: 3,506 in an average of 40 days

Total claims processed: 9,428 in an average of 67 days

January:

Digital claims processed: 6,465 in an average of 48 days

Total claims processed: 15,571 in an average of 77 days

February:

Digital claims processed: 7,054 in an average of 34 days

Total claims processed: 18,149 in an average of 71 days

March:

Digital claims processed: 10,817 in an average of 39 days

Total claims processed: 22,237 in an average of 60 days

April:

Digital claims processed: 7,394 in an average of 50 days

Total claims processed: 17,175 in an average of 78 days

May:

Digital claims processed: 8,761 in an average of 66 days

Total claims processed: 19,433 in an average of 87 days

Modernization isn't just about filing; it's about getting paid faster. OPM is now beginning the approval process while final payroll details are being wrapped up. The new target? Delivering the first pension payment within seven days of retirement for complete applications submitted by a worker's final day on the job.

The digital transition also applies to former employees eligible for deferred or postponed retirement. Although the RI 79-9 paper form may still appear online, ORA is now the mandatory portal for these applications. If you have already submitted a paper file, OPM recommends checking in to see if you can resubmit digitally. Agencies are no longer the gatekeepers for these claims; their role is now to help you navigate ORA so you can take control of the process yourself.

To support this shift, OPM has revamped its online resources for planning and applying: https://www.opm.gov/retirement-center/csrs-information/planning-and-applying/. Here is the essential guidance for your application (pay close attention to the Application tips to avoid common delays):

Applying for retirement

To get payments from CSRS or FERS, you must apply using the Online Retirement Application (ORA) platform.

How to submit your retirement application

If you have been out of federal service for more than 30 days, you must send your application directly to OPM through the ORA portal. If you are still working, talk to your human resources office to start the process.

If you are still working, contact your human resources office to start your application through ORA.

Application processing

Processing your retirement involves your former agency, the payroll office, and finally OPM, which approves your payments.

Reducing delays in processing

You can help avoid delays by applying early and making sure your Official Personnel Folder (OPF) is complete. Also, review our Application Tips to see if you need to include any extra documents.

If you apply early, your human resources office can finish their part before you retire.

How your application is processed

Your human resources office

Your HR office does the following to process your application:

Verify any service not fully documented in your OPF. If documentation is missing, verification may be obtained by contacting federal record centers. If the human resources office is unable to obtain verification, OPM will complete verification upon receipt of your retirement application and records.  However, this process will cause a delay in processing.

Transfer your enrollment under the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program to OPM.

Transfer your coverage under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) program to OPM.

Prepare your separation Notification of Personnel Action (SF 50)

Complete the human resources checklist and send your retirement application package to the payroll office.

Your payroll office

Once HR finishes, your payroll office will:

Authorize your final paycheck and lump sum payment for unused annual leave.

Prepare your Individual Retirement Record (IRR), SF 2806 (CSRS) or SF 3100 (FERS), which reflects service, salary history, and annual retirement deductions.

Complete the payroll checklist and submit the final retirement application package to OPM.

Opm claim processing

Once OPM receives your application, they will:

Send you a welcome notice with your Civil Service Annuitant (CSA) claim number.

Obtain any missing information or documents from your retirement application package.

Determine your eligibility for an annuity and to continue health and life insurance benefits.

Calculate your annuity amount.

Send you information about your ability to pay an unpaid deposit or redeposit.

Authorize your annuity payments which are paid by the Department of the Treasury.

Provide you with your retirement benefits booklet which is available through Retirement Services Online.

Your csa claim number

When OPM gets your application, they will send you a welcome notice with your Civil Service Annuitant (CSA) claim number. This number looks like A8DXXXXX0. You must use this number whenever you contact OPM.

With your CSA number, you can log in to Retirement Services Online (RSO). There, you can track your application and update your tax withholding, address, and direct deposit. RSO will be your main portal for managing benefits.

If you have questions before you receive your claim number

If you need to contact OPM early, check your status on the ORA platform first. If it hasn't been sent to OPM yet, then contact your former HR office.

If you didn't use ORA, contact your former HR office to see when they sent your package to OPM. Former employees can contact OPM directly by phone, mail, or help request.

Annuity payment schedule

Monthly payments are sent on the first business day of the month for the month before. For example, your June 1 payment is for May.

Time frame for processing application

For current times, visit our Retirement Processing Times page.

If your records are complete, your application may be processed faster than average. However, it can take longer if we have to contact you or your agency for more info.

Deferred retirement

Deferred retirement is for former employees who left before they were eligible for an immediate annuity. Your annuity starts once you reach the required age and service years (like age 62 with 5 years). Apply through ORA at least 60 days before you want your payments to start.

Note that health and life insurance cannot be restarted with a deferred retirement. To apply, create an ORA account, verify your ID with Login.gov, and submit your application. Be ready with your service dates, military info, and any previous refund or workers' comp data.

Postponed retirement

Postponed retirement is different. It is for those who left at or after minimum retirement age with 10+ years of service but waited to start payments. Unlike deferred retirement, this may let you restart health and life insurance if you had them for the five years before you left.

You must also use ORA and apply at least 60 days before your start date. This date must be the first of a month and before your 62nd birthday. This is critical " — " if you wait until age 62, it becomes a deferred retirement, and you lose your insurance benefits forever.

To apply, create an ORA account and verify your ID. Provide the same info as deferred retirement, plus your start date and insurance info.

This is a bold step forward, but it isn't a magic fix. While ORA breaks the slow paper chains of the past, accuracy remains paramount.

Delays can still happen if you have missing service info, court orders or need Social Security info.

Financial experts still advise keeping a six-month cash reserve while your retirement is finalized. Many employees strategically save annual leave for a lump-sum payout, which is why retirement spikes are common at the end of the leave year.

The "Last Day of Paper" marks a new era for the federal workforce, offering a transparent and efficient route to retirement. For OPM, it's a tool to manage growing retiree numbers with precision. Ultimately, the success of this digital age will depend on clear communication and the workforce's ability to adapt to these new rules.

Here is where employees as well as former employees who are applying for a deferred or a postponed retirement can begin the process: https://retire.opm.gov/portal

]]>

Some TSP funds faltered in June

Erich Wagner — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 12:31:20 -0400

The federal government’s 401(k)-style retirement savings program posted mixed results in June, ending two straight months of consistent growth.

The Thrift Savings Plan’s S Fund, which is made up of small- and mid-size businesses, saw the best performance, gaining 4.34% last month. Since January, the S Fund has grown 18.41%.

The fixed income (F) fund increased 0.25% last month, bringing its 2026 performance to 0.74%. And the G Fund, which is made up of government securities, increased by its statutorily mandated rate of 0.37%. So far this year, the G Fund has swelled 2.18%.

But the I Fund was virtually flat in June, losing 0.03%. That brings the I Fund’s 2026 performance to 16.53%. And the C Fund’s common stocks fell 0.95%, bringing its gains since January down to 10.20%.

Each of the TSP’s lifecycle (L) funds, which shift toward more conservative investments as participants approach retirement age, posted muted gains in June. The L Income Fund, designed for those already making withdrawals, gained 0.30%; L 2030, 0.21%; L 2035, 0.18%; L 2040, 0.16%; L 2045, 0.14%; L 2050, 0.12%; L 2055, 0.06%; L 2060, 0.06%; L 2065, 0.06%; L 2070, 0.06%; and L 2075, 0.06%.

Since January, the L Income Fund has grown 5.24%; L 2030, 8.33%; L 2035, 9.55%: L 2040, 10.21%; L 2045, 10.77%; L 2050, 11.34%; L 2055, 13.41%; L 2060, 13.40%; L 2065, 13.40%; L 2070, 13.40%.

]]>

The Medicare question federal retirees can’t ignore anymore

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 15:00:00 -0400

Just as Social Security is central to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), Medicare may play an important role in meeting your health insurance needs in retirement. The 2026 Medicare Trustees Report, released on June 9, offers useful insight into future Medicare costs and why federal retirees should think carefully about whether adding Medicare to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB) makes sense.

For federal civilian retirees covered by FEHB, the Medicare decision is often confusing for a few basic reasons:

You are not required to enroll in Medicare to keep FEHB coverage after age 65.
The Medicare Part B premium is substantial and, for some people, may equal or exceed the premium for their FEHB plan.
The choice is rarely as simple as dropping FEHB or skipping Medicare. More often, it comes down to whether adding Medicare to an FEHB plan that “wraps around” Medicare actually improves coverage enough to justify the added cost.
It is almost never advisable to drop FEHB coverage in retirement. Once you leave it, you generally cannot get it back.
The decision gets more complicated when one spouse or family member turns 65 while others remain ineligible for Medicare.
Medicare Part A (inpatient hospital care) and Part B (outpatient care, including doctor visits, lab work and testing) overlap significantly with services already covered under FEHB.

Note: To continue coverage under the Postal Service Health Benefits (PSHB) Program in retirement, you must enroll in Medicare Part B unless you qualify for an exception. For complete PSHB eligibility rules and exceptions, see guidance from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Part B premiums

According to the latest report, Medicare Part B premiums are expected to keep rising.

Most enrollees pay the standard premium — $202.90 per month in 2026 — which covers about 25% of the average program cost for an older beneficiary. Higher-income retirees also pay an Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount (IRMAA). For 2026, IRMAA applies when 2024 modified adjusted gross income exceeds $109,000 for single filers or $218,000 for joint filers. Higher-income retirees may also owe IRMAA surcharges for Part D coverage, even when their FEHB plan includes prescription drug coverage through the Medicare Prescription Drug Program at no additional premium.

Late enrollment can also add a permanent penalty. In most cases, the penalty equals 10% of the standard Part B premium for each full 12-month period enrollment is delayed after the initial enrollment period ends. People age 65 or older who are covered by health insurance from current employment may qualify for a special enrollment period and avoid the penalty if they enroll within eight months after that coverage ends.

Some beneficiaries pay less than the standard premium because of the hold harmless provision, which limits premium increases for individuals whose Social Security cost-of-living adjustment is smaller than the Medicare premium increase.

FEHB and Medicare

When deciding whether to enroll in Medicare while keeping FEHB, premiums are only part of the equation. Medicare may reduce out-of-pocket costs, expand provider options and make it worthwhile to choose an FEHB plan that coordinates more effectively with Medicare. That becomes especially relevant in years involving serious illness, injury or ongoing treatment.

The Trustees Report projects the following Part B premiums:

Year	Estimated monthly premium	Annual amount (per person)
2027	$209.50	$2,514.00
2028	$224.50	$2,694.00
2029	$238.50	$2,862.00
2030	$255.50	$3,066.00
2031	$272.10	$3,265.20
2032	$290.20	$3,482.40
2033	$313.60	$3,763.20
2034	$338.50	$4,062.00
2035	$360.60	$4,327.20

The value of combining FEHB with premium-free Part A and Part B depends heavily on how a specific FEHB plan coordinates with Medicare.

Some FEHB plans waive deductibles, copays and coinsurance when Medicare is the primary payer. In practice, that can significantly reduce out-of-pocket costs and, in some cases, offset much of the Part B premium for retirees with higher health care usage.

Examples include Blue Cross Blue Shield Basic Option and Standard Option, MHBP Consumer Plan and Standard, G.E.H.A. High Option and Standard, and Aetna Direct. These plans vary in premiums, provider networks, out-of-pocket maximums and Medicare coordination rules, so retirees need to compare full plan brochures rather than relying on summaries.

To evaluate options, retirees should review Section 4 for catastrophic protection and out-of-pocket maximums, the back cover for premiums and Section 9 for Medicare coordination details. Not all FEHB plans waive cost-sharing when Medicare is primary. The Office of Personnel Management provides a plan comparison tool, and the Checkbook Guide to Federal Health Plans is also widely used.

Some FEHB plans also provide Medicare Part B premium rebates. Examples include Blue Cross Blue Shield Basic Option ($800 annually per person), G.E.H.A. High Option ($1,000) and Aetna Direct ($900). These offsets can materially change the effective cost comparison between plans.

Plans that coordinate well with Medicare tend to fall into two broad patterns: lower-premium designs with stronger Medicare integration or higher-premium plans that trade cost for broader networks and simpler access. HMOs may appeal to retirees who want coordinated care and fewer administrative decisions, while fee-for-service plans may better suit those prioritizing provider flexibility.

FEHB and Medicare Part C, also known as Medicare Advantage

Retirees enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B may also have access to Medicare Advantage options through FEHB carriers. These employer group plans typically bundle medical, hospital and prescription drug coverage, though benefits vary by carrier and geography.

Common features include:

Lower premiums or reductions in Part B costs
Reduced or waived deductibles, coinsurance and copays
Fitness, wellness, home health or over-the-counter benefits
Prescription savings and, in some cases, broader networks or fewer referral requirements

Even as Medicare and FEHB premiums continue to rise, many retirees still find the combination worthwhile when plans include cost-sharing waivers, rebates or Medicare Advantage structures that shift more costs away from point-of-care spending. Higher-income retirees subject to IRMAA face a sharper calculation: higher fixed premiums today versus potential exposure to higher out-of-pocket costs later. For many, the decision is less about optimization than risk tolerance over time.

]]>

Expanding paid leave for federal workers is back on the table

Erich Wagner — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 16:32:06 -0400

A bipartisan trio of House lawmakers on Thursday reintroduced legislation aimed at expanding federal workers’ access to paid leave to handle illnesses and other circumstances not included in the 2019 law granting feds paid parental leave.

The Comprehensive Paid Leave for Federal Employees Act, introduced by Reps. Don Beyer, D-Va., Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., and Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., would grant federal employees up to 12 weeks of paid family leave each year to attend to a serious health condition or to care for a spouse, child or parent. The measure would also cover absences needed to help a family member who is the survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, as well as to attend to a family member’s deployment into active duty military service.

When Congress passed the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, the House’s version included a provision providing 12 weeks of paid parental and family leave to feds. But during negotiations with the Senate, the measure was stripped down to remove the family leave portions, and feds became eligible for paid parental leave in October 2020.

The lawmakers’ bill was first introduced in 2021 by then-Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who previously had spearheaded the campaign for paid parental leave. In a statement, the lawmakers argued that feds’ current access to unpaid family leave is unrealistic given today’s cost of living.

“Unpaid leave may protect a job on paper, but for too many working families, it is not leave they can actually afford to take," Fitzpatrick said. “When a federal employee faces a serious illness or needs to care for a loved one, the choice should not be between earning a paycheck and being present for their family. Without paid leave, workers can be pushed out of careers they have spent years building, agencies lose experienced public servants, and taxpayers lose operational expertise that cannot be easily replaced.”

“We’ve already made meaningful progress by securing paid parental leave for federal employees and expanding paid leave for service members who transition to the federal workforce,” Beyer said. “The next step is expanding family and medical leave to all federal workers, because every American deserves the peace of mind that comes from being able to take time off to care for their health or a loved one without losing a paycheck.”

]]>

Why Social Security’s funding gap matters to federal retirement

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 15:00:00 -0400

The 2026 Social Security Trustees Report released this week has a familiar warning and a shorter clock.

Social Security is not going anywhere, but the program is moving closer to the point where it will no longer be able to pay full scheduled benefits from its current revenue. The report says the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund can pay full benefits only until the fourth quarter of 2032. After that, incoming revenue would cover about 78% of scheduled benefits unless Congress acts. If combined with the disability trust fund, the system could pay full benefits until 2034, then benefits will be reduced to about 83% of the promised amount.

To be sure, there is nothing indicating that benefits will stop. Payroll taxes will keep coming in, and Social Security will still pay most of what it owes. But it will mean an automatic cut if lawmakers do nothing.

That is why the comparison to 1983 matters. Congress faced a Social Security emergency then, too, and acted before full checks were interrupted. The difference is that today’s problem is less a sudden cash crisis than a slower, deeper mismatch between promised benefits and projected revenue.

For many Americans, these reductions would cause or worsen impoverishment and create financial hardship for most retirees.

Got a question for federal retirement expert Tammy Flanagan? Send to us at newstips@govexec.com and she might answer it during our live webinar at 2 p.m. on Thurs., June 18.

What the report really says

The trustees track two funds: one for retirement and survivors benefits, and one for disability benefits.

The headline number in 2026 is the retirement fund’s projected depletion in late 2032. The combined projection stretches to 2034, and the disability fund remains in much stronger shape on its own.

The bigger point is that the gap is no longer abstract. It is close enough that every year of delay makes the eventual fix harder. Analysts estimate a 75-year actuarial deficit of 4.42% of taxable payroll, with a present-value shortfall of roughly $31 trillion. In plain English, there is no tiny fix left. Congress can still solve the problem gradually, but not painlessly.

Why the gap keeps growing

Social Security runs mainly on payroll taxes, so the math works best when there are many workers relative to retirees.

Over time, that balance has changed. Birth rates are lower, people live longer and the baby boom generation is already retiring. The result is a smaller worker-to-beneficiary ratio and a larger bill for benefits.

That is the key contrast with 1983: Then, lawmakers were trying to stop an immediate payment crisis. Now, they are confronting a bigger structural problem that has been building for years.

The 2026 report also reflects lower projected fertility, lower assumed immigration and policy changes that reduce tax revenue from the taxation of benefits.

In other words, Social Security is being squeezed by demographics, economics and policy at the same time.

What can Congress actually do?

The menu is not endless.

Congress can raise more revenue, slow the growth of future benefits, change eligibility rules or mix those steps to avoid relying on one substantial solution.

That was the logic in 1983, too.

The difference is scale: Today’s shortfall is larger, and the politics may be tougher.

For most current civilian employees, the Federal Employees Retirement System is built on three parts: the FERS Basic Retirement benefit, also known as a pension, the Thrift Savings Plan and Social Security. In other words, Social Security is not a side benefit for most federal workers and retirees today. It is an important leg of retirement income and a source of disability and survivor protection for families.

For many federal employees, especially those under FERS, the program is an integral part of retirement security rather than an add-on.

Raise more revenue

The most straightforward option is to bring in more money. Congress could raise the payroll tax rate or lift the taxable wage cap so high earners pay more of their income into the system. Supporters say that is the cleanest way to close the gap. Critics say it would reduce take-home pay or increase labor costs.

In 1983, lawmakers accelerated already scheduled payroll tax increases. This time, the debate is more likely to center on the wage cap and broader revenue measures.

Slow future benefits

Another approach is to slow the growth of future benefits, especially for higher earners. That can mean changing the initial benefit formula, trimming annual cost-of-living increases or expanding some form of means testing.

Supporters argue that promised benefits have outgrown dedicated funding.

Opponents warn that even gradual cuts would hit workers who rely heavily on Social Security and have little savings to fall back on.

Raise the retirement age

Raising the full retirement age beyond 67 is another familiar proposal.

Supporters say longer life expectancy makes it reasonable to wait longer for full benefits.

Critics counter that this is a benefit cut by another name, especially for workers in physically demanding jobs or with shorter life expectancies.

Because the 1983 amendments already raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67, any new increase would feel less like a tweak and more like a second major rewrite of Social Security’s retirement promise.

How about a compromise?

Many policy specialists think the only realistic answer is a blended package: some new revenue, some slower growth in benefits and stronger protection for people who depend most on the program.

That was also the basic logic in 1983.

The challenge now is that compromise is harder in a more polarized Congress, and every serious fix creates obvious political losers.

The June 10 House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Social Security

Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano’s June 10 testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee added another wrinkle: Social Security’s finances are now being debated alongside the agency’s day-to-day performance.

In this hearing, the focus was on customer service and modernization. Lawmakers pushed back on whether seniors, people with disabilities and other beneficiaries are experiencing better access. That matters because even a strong solvency plan will be harder to sell if the public does not trust the agency running the program.

Does 1983 still matter?

The Social Security Amendments of 1983 remain the clearest benchmark for what a rescue looks like.

That bipartisan deal, signed into law on April 20, 43 years ago, provided a combination of faster payroll tax increases, taxation of some benefits, a phased increase in the full retirement age and broader coverage for more workers, including all federal employees first hired after 1983, who were then required to pay FICA taxes.

Lawmakers acted before the crisis became unmanageable and spread the pain across multiple groups.

Today’s problem is harder in one important way: It is not just a short-term liquidity scare. It is a long-term structural mismatch between benefits and revenue after decades of delay.

That means Congress needs a broader, more long-lasting package than it adopted in 1983, with more emphasis on revenue and clearer protections for lower-income retirees.

What is Congress waiting for?

Social Security reform is hard for an obvious reason: Every real solution will make some groups unhappy.

Higher taxes anger workers and employers.

Slower benefit growth alarms retirees and near-retirees.

A higher retirement age sparks backlash from labor groups and people in physically demanding jobs.

Lawmakers often promise protection and attack the other side’s ideas rather than vote for a package of trade-offs.

The trouble is that waiting only makes the final fix larger and harsher.

The bottom line

The lesson of the 2026 trustees report is simple: Social Security still has time, but not much easy time left.

The retirement trust fund is projected to run short in 2032, and the combined system will face automatic benefit reductions in 2034 if Congress does nothing. The 1983 comparison shows that bipartisan reform is possible. It also shows why delays are dangerous.

Then, lawmakers acted before the crisis became unmanageable. Now, they face a larger structural shortfall after years of drift.

The most plausible solution is not a miracle fix, but a politically painful compromise that mixes new revenue, slower benefit growth and protections for the people most dependent on the program.

]]>

A record number of feds are retiring. Will that slow your claim?

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 16:04:20 -0400

Retirement statistics are more than monthly government reports, they offer a practical window into how long claims are taking, where delays may occur and what future retirees should expect. For federal employees planning to leave service, these numbers can help set realistic expectations, guide financial preparation and highlight why understanding the retirement process matters before you submit your application.

New claims processing - This report provides historical data detailing key performance variables, with average processing time presented in days.
Agency retirement case accuracy report - This report reflects the number of non-disability retirement application packages audited and the associated error rate for an agency that had at least 15 cases reviewed in a specified month in the current fiscal year.

Note: The Agency Retirement Case Accuracy Reports do not appear to be current. It is unclear whether the December-July period shown is from 2024-2025 or an earlier year.

How these statistics can help you prepare

Prepare for a period when you may need to rely on personal savings while your CSRS or FERS retirement is being processed.

Within about 2-4 weeks after OPM receives your application, you are usually placed in interim pay status. These temporary monthly payments are estimated and are often much lower than your final benefit.

Set aside about six months of living expenses in case your full benefit is delayed.

If possible, save annual leave and retire near the end of the year so you receive a larger lump-sum leave payout.

A TSP loan may help increase short-term cash reserves, since loans can now be repaid after separation. However, loans are only available while you are employed. They have fees, reduce potential investment growth and may create taxable income if not repaid on time.

Understand how your benefit is calculated, especially when large numbers of retirements are being processed and cases may move at different speeds.

If your case is complex, it may take longer than the average processing time.

High volume can also increase the risk of errors if cases are rushed.

If your agency uses the Online Retirement Application (ORA), your claim may move faster than a paper application.

Public data does not show how long it takes for your application to move from your agency to the payroll provider and then to OPM. Although this should take about four to six weeks after separation, in recent months it has been rumored that it is taking sometimes much longer.

If you have not received your annual leave payout or your Civil Service Active (CSA) number, your claim may not have reached OPM yet.

Key monthly retirement claim trends

Digital (Online Retirement Application) claims received each month:

October 2025 — 6,176 (30% of total claims)
November 2025 — 7,833 (33% of total claims)
December 2025 — 6,055 (45% of total claims)
January 2026 — 9,394 (49% of total claims)
February 2026 — 15,494 (49% of total claims)
March 2026 — 8,830 (59% of total claims)
April 2026 — 8,743 (73% of total claims)
May 2026 — 8,288 (73% of total claims)

Total claims received each month so far in FY 2026 (digital and paper combined), compared with the same months in FY 2016:

What the data suggests

For years, warnings about a federal “retirement tsunami” have been overstated. But with far more employees now at or near retirement age, the recent surge in claims suggests that the long-predicted wave may finally have arrived.

Compared with the same period in FY 2016[1], claim volume in FY 2026 is much higher, increasing the workload for agencies, payroll providers and OPM. The delays in processing resulted from the large numbers of separations, including many that did not result in immediate retirement benefits.

Digital applications are becoming more common, but about one in four claims still arrive on paper.

From FY 2007 to FY 2016, the three cabinet agencies with the most retirements were the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of the Army and the Department of the Navy. In FY 2025, those agencies saw sharply different workforce changes, which may affect future retirement patterns.

Once OPM receives a retirement case, the average processing time in FY 2026 is 46 days for digital ORA claims and 73 days for all claims. In May, the averages were 66 days for 8,761 digital claims and 87 days for 10,672 paper claims. That suggests many of the claims completed in May likely reached OPM three to four months earlier, around February or March. Some were likely part of the usual year-end retirements effective Dec. 31, 2025, while others may have been Sept. 30 retirements delayed by heavy workloads in agency HR and payroll offices.

Because averages include both fast and slow cases, some claims move much faster while others take much longer. If you want to know whether your case may be delayed, consider the factors OPM says can slow processing:

Court orders such as a divorce decree or property settlement. These require an additional step and are sent to the Court Order Benefits Branch for review.
Service as a law enforcement officer, firefighter, air traffic controller, Capitol Police, Supreme Court Police or nuclear materials courier, as these cases use a special annuity computation.
Past or active workers’ compensation claims.
Service as a part-time or intermittent federal employee.
Federal service at multiple federal agencies.
Missing documents and forms or incomplete or incorrect information in your retirement application.
Moving without updating your address with OPM.

The larger message in these statistics is clear: retirement processing times, claim volume and case complexity all affect how quickly benefits are finalized. Employees who understand these trends can plan more effectively, build a stronger financial cushion and avoid being caught off guard during the transition from paycheck to annuity.

OPM also publishes the total number of CSRS and FERS annuitants added to the Annuity Roll Processing System (ARPS) from FY 2000 through FY 2025. These totals include retirements processed as of Sept. 30, so most deferred resignation retirements from last year are not reflected in the 2025 figure.

So far in FY 2026, OPM has processed 119,451 retirement claims with four months still left in the fiscal year — a record pace for the past 25 years.

Historical ARPS retirement totals (FY 2000-FY 2025)

Fiscal year — total annuitants added as of Sept. 30

2025 — 112,679
2024 — 95,477
2023 — 108,387
2022 — 114,505
2021 — 96,956
2020 — 99,529
2019 — 109,991
2018 — 109,850
2017 — 96,459
2016 — 99,242
2015 — 99,710
2014 — 105,037
2013 — 138,039
2012 — 111,641
2011 — 82,837
2010 — 76,864
2009 — 87,907
2008 — 86,615
2007 — 92,349
2006 — 103,292
2005 — 94,977
2004 — 90,441
2003 — 81,128
2002 — 74,153
2001 — 77,330
2000 — 77,383

]]>

OPM to set new requirements to ‘verify’ FEHBP enrollments

Erich Wagner — Tue, 02 Jun 2026 16:40:45 -0400

The Office of Personnel Management on Tuesday published regulations aimed at better verifying that family members of federal workers and retirees are eligible for benefits under two of the government’s employer-sponsored health insurance programs.

Last year, Congress enacted a law requiring stricter screening of participants in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and Postal Service Health Benefits Program to ensure they are eligible for coverage. That move came following a 2022 Government Accountability Office report finding that the government could be spending upwards of $1 billion per year to cover family members and former spouses of federal workers and retirees who no longer qualified as dependents.

In 2024, OPM instructed agencies to audit a sample of 10% of FEHBP enrollees—the PSHBP had not yet launched at the time—to verify their continued eligibility. But due to a combination of “high transactions” during the 2024 open season and “staffing challenges” last year, the effort never made it off the ground.

In a final rule published to the Federal Register Tuesday, OPM said beginning July 1, federal workers who enroll a child or spouse in health insurance benefits through FEHBP or PSHBP will be required to provide proof of their eligibility. Among the acceptable documentation are government-issued marriage certificates, birth certificates, paternity tests and foster child or adoption paperwork. Parents of adult dependents under 26 may submit their children’s tax returns to confirm eligibility, and in instances involving a disabled adult, a medical certification that they are incapable of “self-support” will be accepted.

Under the new process, agency employing offices or OPM can disenroll a family member of the federal worker “fails to provide adequate documentation” of their eligibility. If someone is disenrolled, they may ask for a reconsideration of that decision within 60 days, but the result of that process is “final.”

While much of the rule is aimed at improving eligibility verification when a dependent is first added to insurance coverage, OPM said it is still preparing for the FEHB Protection Act’s other major provision: an audit of existing enrollments to verify participants’ continued eligibility.

“OPM concurs that there are ineligible family members participating in the program and more can be done to identify and remove them from coverage,” the rule states. “That [GAO] report made several recommendations, many of which OPM concurred with and implemented. While this work progresses, OPM is also preparing for the family member eligibility audit required by the FPA. This audit is a critical piece of addressing ineligible family member coverage and restoring program integrity, but the economic effects of the audit are not included in this rule since it is not affected by this rule.”

]]>

TSP funds kept climbing in May

Erich Wagner — Mon, 01 Jun 2026 12:41:39 -0400

For the second straight month, each portfolio offered by the federal government’s 401(k)-style retirement savings program finished May in the black.

The C Fund’s common stocks sported the best performance, gaining 5.26% last month. So far this year, the C Fund has grown 11.26%. The international investments of the I Fund came in second, increasing 4.90% in value in May. Since January, the I Fund has grown 16.56%.

The S Fund, comprised of small- and mid-size businesses, finished May 4.49% in the black, bringing its 2026 performance to 13.48%. And the fixed income (F) fund grew 0.33% last month. Since January, the F Fund has grown 0.49%.

The G Fund, which is made up of government securities, increased by its statutorily mandated rate of 0.39% last month. So far this year, the G Fund has grown 1.80%.

Each of the TSP’s lifecycle funds, which shift toward more conservative investments as participants get closer to retirement, similarly gained value last month. The L Income Fund, designed for people who have already begun making withdrawals, gained 1.66%; L 2030, 2.95%; L 2035, 3.44%; L 2040, 3.71%; L 2045, 3.95%; L 2050, 4.18%; L 2055, 5.00%; L 2060, 5.00%; L 2065, 5.00%; L 2070, 5.00%; and L 2075, 5.00%.

So far this year, the L Income Fund has increased 4.93%; L 2030, 8.10%; L 2035, 9.36%; L 2040, 10.03%; L 2045, 10.61%; L 2050, 11.20%; L 2055, 13.34%; L 2060, 13.34%; L 2065, 13.34%; L 2070, 13.33%; and L 2075, 13.33%.

]]>

What retiring feds should do before asking for help

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 28 May 2026 15:00:00 -0400

The transition from employee to annuitant can be stressful, especially when someone is worried about income, benefits, deadlines, taxes or missing paperwork. It helps to get the answers you need when there are delays or a perceived problem with your benefits. These days, it is even harder to get help since many agencies are short-handed and overwhelmed by the number of employees who have retired at the same time. When you find someone who might be able to resolve your problem or explain something that you do not understand, it is important to include the relevant facts and not bury the real issue under too much background information.

One of the best things you can do is present your situation clearly, completely and with supporting documentation. It might be hard to hear this, but when you are speaking to your human resources representative, benefits specialist or government agency, the quality of the help you receive often depends on the quality of the information you are able to provide. Agencies specifically ask applicants to gather identifying records and supporting documents. Missing or incomplete information can delay retirement processing.

Anyone who deals with these issues knows how important it is to separate facts from opinions and to be prepared to provide the evidence that supports your concern. Working with many employees who are transitioning to retirement, one of the basic things we advise is to save copies of all communications, including personnel records on file with your agency, copies of applications and anything else that provides proof of changes in your federal career such as beginning and ending dates, changes in retirement coverage and changes in work schedule. If there is a problem down the road, it is important to have the evidence needed to pinpoint the issue and solve the problem.

Got a question for federal retirement expert Tammy Flanagan? Send to us at newstips@govexec.com and she might answer it during our live webinar on June 18. Stay tuned for details.

Start with the real problem

The first step in asking for retirement help is identifying the actual question. Many people begin with a long story, a list of frustrations or scattered financial details without ever stating exactly what they need. A better approach is to open with a direct statement such as: “I need help understanding when I can retire,” “I need help fixing a pension calculation issue” or “I need help because my benefits application may be missing documents.”

That kind of opening gives the adviser or representative a clear target. It also saves time and reduces the chance of misunderstanding. Clear requests are especially important because retirement issues often involve strict procedures, required forms and eligibility rules. If the core problem is not stated early, the person trying to help must spend valuable time sorting through facts instead of solving the issue.

When I am asked to intervene and help solve a problem, I only agree to help when I can clearly see what needs to be done and the client can provide the details and documents needed to find a solution.

Tell the whole story — but only the relevant story

Besides providing too much information, people sometimes omit important facts because they assume they do not matter, because they are embarrassing or because they do not realize small details are important clues to the solution. Missing facts can lead to bad advice.

There is a fine line between trying not to provide every detail and leaving out important dates, documents or conversations that belong in the discussion.

Organize the information before asking for help

A productive retirement meeting or inquiry usually starts before the conversation ever happens. When my team at Retire Federal counsels current and recently retired federal workers, we begin by asking them to provide specific documentation so we can understand the details of the career the individual is leaving or recently retired from. A comprehensive review of this documentation is essential to identify clues to the root of a problem and often reveals issues the client might not have considered.

Recently, a retiree asked us to review his retirement calculation and compare it to the amount of money he had received from OPM since his retirement date. His concern was that he retired at the end of February 2024 and did not start receiving his full retirement benefit until December 2024. During that time, the amount of his interim payments changed four times and he was having trouble determining whether he had received his earned annuity benefit. He simply wanted a second opinion.

This individual retired under the older Civil Service Retirement System, or CSRS, with close to 52 years of federal service. The first thing that stood out was the fact that he exceeded the maximum amount of service that would provide him with 80% of his high-three average salary by close to 10 years. This only happens under CSRS; the Federal Employees Retirement System, or FERS, does not limit the calculation.

What he did not notice was that he had never been paid for his excess retirement contributions from the years he paid into CSRS beyond the time he had already earned the maximum annuity benefit. He was not aware that, because of his high salary, he had overpaid more than $100,000 into CSRS.

His case appeared to be finalized when he contacted us in February 2026, as he had already been receiving his full retirement benefit for three months. After reviewing the documentation he provided, we were able to reconstruct his retirement benefit and his contributions to CSRS to show him where the problem was.

Once the issue was clearly explained, we submitted a direct request for help to OPM. After several back-and-forth communications, the issue is finally being resolved. We received an email last week from this client saying he had received most of the overpayment amount owed to him but was still waiting for a final payment of more than $17,000. We are getting there, but we will not take this out of the “needs follow-up” file until he is made whole.

Here is what is needed to reconstruct a retirement benefit and determine whether a problem requires attention:

What type of retirement benefit is involved?
What outcome is being sought?
What has already happened?
What deadlines apply?
What records are available?

A timeline is often one of the most useful tools, along with documentation of specific dates and events. This helps the person providing assistance identify patterns, missing steps or contradictions quickly.

Preparation also makes it easier to separate relevant information from noise. Instead of talking in circles, the person can walk through the issue in a logical sequence and allow the adviser to ask focused follow-up questions.

Saying “they calculated my benefit wrong” is far less useful than providing the estimate, prior statements, payroll records, service history or correspondence showing the discrepancy.

In federal retirement matters, supplemental documents such as marriage certificates, military records or court orders can be essential, and federal regulations make clear that required supporting documentation is the applicant’s responsibility. The agency maintains personnel records and the payroll provider keeps track of salary payments and payroll deductions, but only you are likely to notice whether your retirement was computed on 35 years or 36 years of service. We recently assisted an employee who was being underpaid because of a miscalculation involving years of service.

Everyone can make mistakes, but resolving these types of problems can prove challenging without proof of where the error occurred.

Know what documents matter most

Employment history and dates of service
Pension benefit estimates or annual statements
Plan documents and summary plan descriptions
Application forms already submitted
Letters, emails or notices from the employer, plan administrator or agency
Marriage certificates, divorce decrees or beneficiary forms when relevant
Military records, disability records or court orders when applicable

Not every case requires every document, but the person asking for help should bring anything that proves the facts behind the concern. If something is missing, it is important to make note of the missing information.

Be concise and easy to help

People seeking retirement assistance should aim to be complete without using an angry or sarcastic tone when communicating their concerns.

A useful rule is this: Include facts, dates, names and documents that affect the case. Leave out repeated complaints, unrelated family history and background information that does not change the answer.

The person providing help does not need every emotion-filled detail to evaluate a pension formula, application delay, survivor benefit question or eligibility issue. What they need is a clear problem statement, a reliable timeline and records that support the claim.

Being concise is not rude or cold. It is respectful and efficient. It allows the individual trying to help to spend more time solving the problem and less time trying to uncover basic facts.

Asking for help with retirement is not just a matter of reaching out — it is a matter of communicating well. People who need assistance should clearly state the issue, tell the full relevant story, avoid distracting side details and be prepared to provide evidence supporting what they are claiming.

Retirement decisions can affect income, health coverage, survivor rights and long-term security, so vague explanations and unsupported concerns are not enough. The more organized and honest a person is, the easier it is for someone else to give accurate, timely and effective guidance. In retirement matters, clarity is not optional. It is part of the solution.

Most federal employees enjoy a smooth transition to retirement, but when there is a problem, it is important to get help sooner rather than later. It does not help to ignore the issue and hope it resolves itself.

It is sometimes difficult to know who to ask and how to get the help you need. Talk to customer service representatives at the agency from which you need assistance to see whether they can provide direction. Talk to fellow retirees to learn whether they experienced similar issues and how they resolved them. Go back to your agency HR office to see whether it can provide guidance.

The important thing is to ask for help if you think you have a problem and to be as clear and concise as possible so you can improve your chances of a faster and better resolution.

]]>

NTEU asks Trump administration to ease telework rules as gas prices spike

Erich Wagner — Fri, 22 May 2026 13:55:18 -0400

The National Treasury Employees Union on Thursday called on the Trump administration to help federal workers cope with rising gas prices, as the president’s war in Iran threatens to enter its third month.

Since the effective closure of the Strait of Hormus since shortly after the United States began military strikes in February, the average price of gas has increased from less than $2.81 per gallon in January to $4.56 as of Thursday.

In a pair of letters Thursday, NTEU National President Doreen Greenwald called on agency leaders to take steps to help insulate federal employees from the recent spike in fuel costs, specifically by lifting Trump’s effective elimination of telework for most feds and by authorizing a mid-year increase to gas reimbursement rates for official travel.

In a letter to OPM Director Scott Kupor, Greenwald argued that allowing feds to work from home again would have a knock-on effect to lessen recent price increases’ impact on all Americans. She said agencies should reinstitute the workplace flexibility at least until the average gas price falls back below $3.00 per gallon.

“Not only does telework save the government money through reduced leasing costs, reduced energy expenses and increased productivity, it reduces traffic congestion and saves employees time and money commuting,” Greenwald wrote. “It also helps those who can’t telework by reducing commute times and fuel demand, which helps ease fuel cost increases for everyone. Mandating that all employees must work in person in federal offices, even though many of these jobs were done successfully remotely for years, creates a significant financial burden with gas prices so high, especially for those who live in more rural areas that may be further away from their official worksites.”

The union leader said the administration should abandon its planned pay freeze for federal civilian employees next year and instead impose a “fair” pay increase to help the workforce cope with rising energy and other costs.

And in another letter Thursday, this time to Internal Revenue Service CEO Frank Bisignano, Greenwald called for a mid-year increase to gas reimbursement rates for official travel.

Although the General Services Administration typically sets the government’s reimbursement rates for travel and lodging, those actions are capped by the IRS’ maximum rate at which taxpayers may deduct fuel as a business expense. The IRS has made mid-year increases to those caps three times since the turn of the century, most recently in 2022.

“This is a matter of fairness and basic equity for all Americans,” Greenwald wrote. “Failing to increase the mileage reimbursement rate in response to rising fuel costs shifts unreimbursed business expenses onto employees and creates unnecessary financial strain for all workers who must rely on their cars to perform their jobs, including federal employees.”

]]>

What federal employees get wrong about divorce and retirement

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 21 May 2026 15:00:00 -0400

Sometimes, life comes with unpleasant surprises. From a financial planning and retirement preparation perspective, one of the most difficult is divorce.

One person who knows a lot about this topic is Dan Jamison, a CPA and retired FBI special agent. Over the years, he has shared information with me that might help those going through this process. Dan specializes in assisting federal employees and annuitants with the division of retirement benefits in divorce and has written the popular FERS Retirement and Benefits Guide.

CSRS or FERS retirement benefits

The number one misunderstanding, in Dan’s experience, occurs when a former spouse of a federal employee is granted a pro-rata award of a federal retirement benefit, but there is no mention of a survivor annuity that is payable to the former spouse.

Another common oversight is when a survivor annuity is awarded to a former spouse without the level of survivor annuity being defined. In such cases, the Office of Personnel Management interprets it as a full survivor annuity.

Many times, employees don’t fully understand this until after retirement. After the retirement or death of the employee, the survivor annuity portion of a divorce agreement or court order can’t be modified.

Got a question for federal retirement expert Tammy Flanagan? Send to us at newstips@govexec.com and she might answer it during our live webinar on June 18. Stay tuned for details.

Another problem can arise if the former spouse was awarded full survivor benefits and the employee remarries. The survivor annuity is paid on a “first come, first served” basis, which means the former spouse will receive the court-ordered benefit and there may be little to nothing left for the new spouse if the employee dies before either of them.

In this situation, you should elect the survivor benefit for your current spouse that you would have chosen if there wasn’t a court-ordered award to your former spouse.

Remember that your current spouse will not receive the benefit, however, unless the former spouse loses entitlement due to his or her death or remarriage before age 55. If your marriage had lasted 30 years or more, remarriage will not cause the former spouse to lose entitlement.

You also can choose an “insurable interest” survivor election at retirement so your current spouse would be entitled to 55% of your reduced retirement benefit, even if the former spouse is eligible for the court-ordered benefit.

This would cause your retirement to be reduced twice, so it can be expensive. You must select the insurable interest survivor benefit at the time of retirement and prove your insurability, meaning your good health.

Remember, if your current spouse is not entitled to a spousal survivor annuity, they also might lose entitlement to health benefits if you die first unless they are entitled under their own federal employment or retirement benefit.

If an employee provides an insurable interest survivor annuity and the former spouse subsequently loses title to their survivor annuity, the insurable interest survivor annuity can be converted by OPM back to a normal spousal survivor annuity.

Dan says that in most cases the intent of the parties in a divorce is to award a survivor benefit in the same amount as the annuity award so that the former spouse receives the same amount of annuity regardless of whether the retiree is alive or deceased.

For example, if the portion of the retirement annuity payable to the former spouse is $20,000 per year, then the survivor annuity is often spelled out in the divorce agreement as the same amount.

If the employee has not yet retired, the divorce decree can be superseded at OPM by a new court order with revised survivor annuity terms.

Follow-through failure

Another area of concern, according to Dan, is the lack of follow-through after a divorce is finalized.

Upon finalization of a divorce in which a portion of a retirement annuity and/or Thrift Savings Plan funds are awarded to the former spouse, separate court orders for the TSP and OPM must be prepared to divide the funds.

The dividing order for the TSP is called a Retirement Benefits Court Order. The order for OPM to divide the annuity is called a Court Order Acceptable for Processing.

A COAP may award several retirement-related benefits, including survivor annuity, refunds of retirement contributions, health benefits and assignment of life insurance, as well as a portion of the retirement.

If you have been through a divorce, take a moment to locate a copy of your decree and/or settlement agreement.

Ensure that the appropriate court orders have been obtained and sent to the appropriate agencies at least one year prior to your anticipated retirement.

OPM will mail a determination letter to both parties after receipt of a COAP. Locate that letter as well and make sure it reflects your understanding of the award.

Another mistake employees sometimes make is failing to inform their Federal Employees Health Benefits Program carrier about their divorce.

Dan said he recently talked to someone who had been divorced for two years and was still carrying his ex-wife on self-and-family FEHBP enrollment. This is not allowed.

Upon the issuance of a divorce decree, only your current spouse and your dependent children can be covered under your FEHBP plan.

I know of divorced feds who are being sued for tens of thousands of dollars by FEHBP carriers for this mistake.

A former spouse may have rights to carry FEHBP coverage through spouse equity provisions of the law, but he or she must enroll in their own plan and pay both the employer and employee share of the premium.

Causes for delay

Here are a few additional divorce-related factors that can cause delays in processing a retirement application:

OPM automatically rejects a court order that isn’t a certified copy, and an applicant may not even know this has occurred. If you’re unsure whether a court order sent to OPM is certified, call the agency’s Court Order Benefits Branch at 202-606-0222 or email retire@opm.gov.
OPM does not automatically start annuity payments to a former spouse upon an employee’s retirement. The former spouse must apply to OPM by written letter, confirming their marital status, personal identifiers and the status of the COAP.
Many former spouses fail to continue health insurance under the FEHBP temporary continuation of coverage program or coverage under the spouse equity provisions of the Federal Employees Retirement System within the prescribed 60-day period after the marriage ends. This can leave the former spouse without health insurance benefits.
You must notify your agency’s human resources office, and you need to complete SF 2809, the Health Benefits Election Form, if you want to change your enrollment from self and family or self plus one to self only, or vice versa. You must let the health plan know the date of the divorce so that your ex-spouse can be removed from your enrollment.

If you’re facing the possibility of divorce or if you’ve already gone through the process, OPM provides a publication that may come in handy: Court Order Benefits for Former Spouses.

Federal Employees Group Life Insurance qualifying life event

Divorce is a life event under FEGLI when an employee, not a retiree, may elect Basic insurance and all Optional insurance coverage, including up to the maximum number of multiples of Option B and/or Option C coverage.

The time limit for making a life event election is 60 days after the date of the qualifying event.

You must file the election with your employing office using the Life Insurance Election form, SF 2817, or its electronic equivalent, along with proof of the event.

You can either file the election before the event, to be followed up with the necessary proof within 60 days after the event has taken place, or you can file the election and provide the necessary proof no later than 60 days after the date of the event.

Proof of an event is your divorce decree. Your employing office determines what is acceptable proof of the life event, not OPM or OFEGLI.

You may want to consider completing a new designation form.

For example, a divorce does not invalidate a designation that names your former spouse as beneficiary, nor do state laws invalidate a designation unless a valid court order names the former spouse to receive FEGLI benefits.

You need to complete a new SF 2823 to remove a former spouse.

In addition to filing your court order with OPM’s Court-Ordered Benefits Office, if there is a FEGLI benefit provided for in the court order and you are an active employee at the time of filing, a copy of the court order must be filed with your agency, too.

Example: Martin is a married employee with FEGLI coverage. He has no designation of beneficiary form on file. He divorced his spouse, Kayla. They have no children.

The divorce court order provides that Kayla is entitled to a future share of Martin’s retirement annuity and to 100% of his FEGLI insurance.

Kayla’s attorney properly files a copy of the court order for the future annuity share with OPM’s Court-Ordered Benefits Branch but does not file a copy with Martin’s agency. Martin also does not file the court order with his agency.

Martin later dies as an active employee. Because the court order awarding FEGLI benefits is not on file with the appropriate office, in this case his employing agency, at the time of his death, FEGLI proceeds will be paid based on the order of precedence, so his parents will receive the proceeds.

You may assign your insurance to comply with an order issued by a divorce court requiring that a former spouse and/or children from a previous marriage be named as the beneficiary of FEGLI proceeds.

If a court order requires you to make an assignment, you must still complete an assignment form for the assignment to take place. A court order requiring an assignment is not a valid assignment.

You may make an assignment by completing an Assignment, Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance form (RI 76-10).

Only the insured, or an assignee reassigning the insurance, may assign the insurance. No one may make an assignment on the insured or assignee’s behalf.

The assignment form must be signed by two witnesses. An assignee cannot be a witness to the assignment.

An assignment is effective on the date your employing office receives the properly completed, signed and witnessed form.

The assignment must specify percentages or fractions of the insurance to go to each assignee. The percentages must total 100%, or fractions must equal 1.0.

You cannot name contingent assignees in the event the primary assignee or assignees predecease you. You cannot assign dollar amounts, and you cannot assign specific types of coverage.

The TSP and divorce

Your former spouse could be awarded a portion of your TSP account if a valid Retirement Benefits Court Order to divide your account is issued.

The RBCO can be issued at any time in divorce, annulment and separation proceedings.

Read the TSP booklet Court Orders and Powers of Attorney to learn more about RBCOs and how they can affect your TSP account.

The rules for qualified domestic relations orders that apply to private-sector plans do not apply to the TSP.

A valid RBCO requires the TSP to freeze your account, preventing you from taking any new loans or withdrawals until the award is paid out or the order is otherwise resolved.

However, a freeze will not prevent you from making contributions or changing your contribution allocation or investment choices, and you will still be required to make payments on existing loans.

In addition, the TSP’s Court Order Center provides a booklet, Court Orders and Powers of Attorney.

Social Security benefits for former spouses

If you were married for at least 10 years before your divorce, your ex-spouse may qualify to receive benefits on your record.

Or you may qualify for benefits as an ex-spouse on his or her record if you are not currently married.

Note: If you were married to the same person more than once during a 10-year period, you or your ex-spouse may still qualify.

Social Security can count those marriages as one if you remarried no later than the calendar year after the year the divorce became final.

Contact Social Security or make an online appointment if you want to file for divorced spouse’s benefits.

For more information about spouse benefits, see Who can get Family benefits.

Widow’s and widower’s benefits

If you are the widow or widower of someone who worked long enough under Social Security, you may be eligible for benefits on his or her record.

Social Security will use the information you give about your prior marriage along with your other responses to evaluate whether you can receive benefits on your deceased spouse’s record.

For more information about benefits for widows and widowers, go to Who can get Survivor benefits.

]]>

The century-old GS system is 'disintegrating' and government can't agree on how to fix it

Howard Risher — Tue, 19 May 2026 07:00:00 -0400

Both Republicans and Democrats see it as a barrier to better government but for totally different reasons. It is central to the “compliance culture” that impedes better government. It still reflects the way work and workers were managed a century ago. It has not been modified, except for separating the Senior Executive Service and adding locality pay, since it was created in 1923.

It’s more than ironic that in that era the head of the Bureau of Efficiency was prominent in the administration of the civil service system. The buzzword then was “scientific management.” Workers were expected to do what they were told, and managed as a cost. That is still true in smaller, owner-managed companies.

Not surprisingly, Elon Musk is known for top-down control. Quotes attributed to him confirm a very negative view of the federal government: “Regulations are immortal.” “The bureaucracy is the problem.” Musk and his chainsaw created an us-vs-them distrust of management. The workforce was “traumatized,” to quote Max Stier, of the Partnership for Public Service.

Now, the government is moving full-steam ahead with AI. It also threatens job security. What has not been addressed is that jobs will be changing rapidly and that is at odds with job classification. A year or two from now the GS system is likely to be unsupportable. AI is exacerbating the already poor employee morale.

Employee costs are not the problem

By any standard, the costs attributed to building a productive workforce are a small percentage – less than 5% – of what the government spends. The cost to raise GS salaries to market rates would be less than 1%.

A related point highlights the political problem. No administration has been concerned with how much federal contractors pay their people. Added to that are the organizations receiving federal grants. Those organizations are not expected to defend how much they pay their staff. That’s true of the Federal Reserve System and the many independent agencies.

There is an alternative management philosophy. That is employees should be managed not as costs but as valued assets. That emerged in the 1990s. It started a few years earlier with W. Edwards Deming’s book, Out of the Crisis, where he argued the problem was not workers, it was the system they work in. Over the decade Gallup first cited research showing engaged workers are more productive. Fortune's “Great Places to Work” lists first appeared. And research confirmed employees are managed differently in “High Performance Organizations.” Those companies have been high on lists of the best performers.

It’s not coincidental that in the 1990s the Clinton-Gore National Performance Review (NPR) confirmed “empowered” federal workers are fully capable of significantly better performance. That initiative resulted in the deletion of over 350,000 jobs and savings in excess of a billion. In that context employees were committed to improving operations.

But just before President Bush took office, the Heritage Foundation released the report, “Taking Charge of Federal Personnel.” It influenced the new administration to centralize management with OMB, returning day-to-day operational control to appointees. That effectively ended the brief recognition that employees are ready to play a role in improving performance.

The Government Accountability Office, then led by David Walker, initiated reform in the late 1990s when budget cuts and staffing reductions forced a strategic restructuring. Walker is known to be a conservative but his reforms emphasized employee empowerment and deep employee involvement in the planning. GAO has been at or close to the top of the Partnerships’ Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Rankings for mid-size agencies since the list was created.

Strategic human capital management has been consistently on GAO’s High Risk list since 2001.

The Pay Agent’s Recommendations for the GS Framework

In December, the Pay Agent’s “Annual Report” stated it would not “approve of further additions to existing locality pay area boundaries or the creation of new locality pay areas at this time.” It was not like prior federal reports in that it was highly critical of the “antiquated” GS system. From the report:

The locality areas “do not align with geographic realities or labor market conditions.”
“It makes no sense to continue expanding locality pay boundaries – or to tinker with the arcane methodology ... given the need for a better pay system.”
“ ... a methodology that produces implausible results while ignoring occupational realties, mission needs, and performance considerations.”

It went on to state, “It has long been clear what the locality pay system’s flaws are” and referred to the 2002 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) white paper, “A Fresh Start for Federal Pay: The Case for Modernization.” The authors contended the GS system “hinders the performance of the Federal Government.”

As the director of the project in 1990 that led to the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act, I agree with their critique. It was passed as a rider, and there were too many compromises. The Bureau of Labor Statistics radically changed its survey methodology soon after passage. Over the years BLS has made additional changes. Today it’s so complex it’s doubtful anyone at OPM or involved with the Federal Salary Council meetings could describe the analytic methodology. It is completely different from anything used in other sectors and far more costly.

The Pay Agent’s report briefly discussed three recommendations “for improving the General Schedule:”

“Assess the total compensation gap.” This is not a new idea. It has been the focus of several Congressional Budget Office reports arguing the cost of government provided benefits offsets the lower salaries. The flaw in that argument is clear in the BLS statistics. Smaller companies provide fewer benefits and their numbers distort any comparison with government’s true talent competitors. Moreover, BLS does not include cash incentive income or stock related income. It would have to be an “apples-to-apples” comparison to be meaningful.
“Provide different pay ranges for different occupations.” This could be a practical answer for high demand occupations. Obviously, the Federal Wage System is based on this argument. It’s also the rationale for the Law Enforcement Officer (LEO) pay system. And from the recommendations in our 1990 locality pay report, the Department of Veterans Affairs was successful three years later in establishing a separate pay policy under Title 38 for physicians, dentists, nurses and several other medical care specialists. It is the answer for high demand occupations.
“Eliminate GS steps and create an open range” to shift to pay for performance. While this has been highly controversial, there is a list of pay demos and independent pay systems with successful pay for performance systems. The state of Tennessee transitioned successfully in the years before COVID to a performance based pay policy. The state is a model for how to make the transition. A core point is that this is culture change. Tennessee invested three years in manager training and practice before actually changing the pay policy. Federal managers and employees are far from ready today.

The Pay Agent report is accurate – the GS system is “a legacy framework from the 1950s.” “It is disintegrating.” The government needs to provide better services. The public’s support continues to decline.

The 2020 Rand report, “Federal Civilian Workforce Hiring, Recruitment, and Related Compensation Practices for the Twenty-First Century,” evaluated the many successful initiatives to develop “modern” pay systems. A common thread is that employees were involved in the planning and implementation. The most notable failure was the roll out of the National Security Personnel System (NSPS) covering 226,000 Defense Department employees. It initially had employee support but they were not involved and after three years the system was terminated.

Employees want their organization to be seen as a success, and as the Clinton-Gore NPR made clear, they understand the problems better than outside experts and want to be involved in improving performance.

There have been repeated recommendations to replace the GS system. It will be a substantial undertaking, far more complicated than the study leading to FEPCA. However, the history here and in other countries suggests it is necessary to improve government performance.

]]>

More GLP-1 options are coming for federal retirees, but they come with a catch

Kevin Moss — Fri, 15 May 2026 08:00:00 -0400

OPM requires FEHB plans to cover at least one GLP-1 prescribed for weight loss, and this extends to any Part D or Medicare Advantage plan offered by an FEHB carrier. As a result, most annuitants with federal retiree coverage have had a path to these drugs for years.

But that hasn’t been true for the broader Medicare population. When Congress created Part D more than two decades ago, it explicitly excluded coverage of drugs prescribed solely for weight loss or gain, meaning Medicare beneficiaries without employer-sponsored retiree benefits could only access GLP-1s if they had a qualifying condition like diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

This summer, that changes. CMS is launching the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge program, which will extend coverage of certain GLP-1 medications for weight loss to eligible Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of whether they have an underlying medical condition.

For annuitants enrolled in Part D, this program could expand your options. Here's what it covers, who qualifies, and what it means for you.

What is the Medicare GLP-1 Bridge Program?

CMS is launching this demonstration project on July 1, and it will provide access to a limited selection of GLP-1 weight loss drugs to eligible Medicare Part D beneficiaries. The program will operate outside of Part D’s benefit and payment structure. CMS is establishing a central processor to run the program.

Who qualifies for the program?

Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D either from a standalone prescription drug plan (PDP) or from a Medicare Advantage plan that bundles Part D (MA-PD) who meet the prior authorization criteria are eligible. FEHB carriers provide Part D options through employer group waiver plans (EGWPs), and these types of plans are eligible for the program.

For the beneficiary to qualify, a provider must submit a prior authorization request to the program that attests “the beneficiary is prescribed the requested drug to reduce excess body weight and maintain weight reduction in combination with current and ongoing lifestyle modification including structured nutrition and physical activity consistent with the applicable FDA approved label, and the beneficiary is at least 18 years of age with a BMI greater than or equal to 35.” For beneficiaries with underlying medical conditions, the BMI threshold is lowered to 30 or 25 based on the diagnosis.

Will I save money in this program?

Not necessarily. The GLP-1 Bridge Program charges a $50 copay for each covered drug, which could be more than what you’d pay with Part D coverage from your FEHB plan. For example, the .25mg injectable version of Wegovy is $35 from the Part D plan with BCBS Standard and $45 from the Part D plan with BCBS Basic.

You’ll need to check the prescription drug pricing tool on your FEHB carrier’s website and compare prices to find out if there are any savings.

Will I have greater access to GLP-1’s in this program?

Probably, and this will likely be the biggest advantage for federal annuitants. The GLP-1 Bridge Program provides access to all formulations of Wegovy and Foundayo, and the KwikPen formulation of Zepbound.

While OPM requires each FEHB plan to cover GLP-1 medications, they aren’t required to cover all of them. For example, BCBS covers Wegovy in their Basic and Standard plans, but they don’t cover Zepbound and Foundayo. In fact, Foundayo just received FDA approval last month and many FEHB plans aren’t yet covering this medication. Annuitants should go to the carrier website for their plan and use the prescription drug lookup tool to see which medications the plan covers.

Are there reasons not to use this program?

Yes. Since this program operates outside of your Part D plan, it means that the $50 copay does not go toward the Part D catastrophic limit ($2,100 in most FEHB Part D plans) or the medical catastrophic limit of your FEHB plan. Not having those costs counted could lead to higher overall out-of-pocket costs.

This demonstration project also has an expiration date of December 31, 2027, at which point it could lead to greater GLP-1 adoption in the Medicare program, or it could simply be terminated.

I’m subject to IRMAA and have opted out of Part D, should I reconsider?

Maybe. You'll need to weigh the Part D IRMAA surcharge against the potential drug cost savings. Here's an example using Wegovy (0.25mg injectable):

Without Part D (BCBS Standard): $640.30/month
With Part D (BCBS Standard): $35.00/month
Highest IRMAA surcharge: $91.00/month

Even at the highest IRMAA tier, enrolling in Part D would cost you $126/month ($35 drug cost + $91 surcharge), a savings of $514.30/month compared to paying out of pocket with regular prescription drug coverage from BCBS Standard. It's also worth noting that Part D eligibility only requires Part A enrollment, so if you've opted out of Part B, you don't need to enroll to access Part D savings.

How do I use the GLP-1 Bridge Program?

Talk with your doctor, not your FEHB plan. They’ll submit the prior authorization request to the program’s central processor for an eligible GLP-1 drug. You’ll pick up your medication at the pharmacy and pay the $50 copay there. More operational details will be forthcoming from CMS in the next few weeks prior to the July 1st launch.

Kevin Moss is a senior editor with the Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees provided by Consumers’ Checkbook. Watch more of his free advice and check here to see if the Guide is available for free from your agency. You can also purchase the Guide and save 20% with promo code GOVEXEC.

]]>

Waiting to retire could be worth thousands of dollars

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 14 May 2026 15:00:00 -0400

Federal employees are no different from other workers. Sometimes leaving a 9-to-5 grind can be very enticing, especially if you are eligible to receive your retirement benefits. There is nothing wrong with retirement; in fact, many retirees I talk with wish that they would have done it sooner. However, there are employees who might benefit from sticking around a little longer. The benefit of a few more months, or maybe a couple of years, can be surprising.

For many federal employees, the retirement question isn’t “Can I retire?” so much as “Should I retire now, or is it smarter to wait?” The answer is rarely about being in a hurry. It’s about trade-offs between guaranteed lifetime income, access to health insurance, taxes and lifestyle priorities. Because federal retirement income is typically built from three pillars — your pension (CSRS or FERS), Social Security and the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) — the best timing choice is often the one that coordinates all three instead of optimizing just one.

1) Your federal retirement benefit: Why waiting can increase lifetime security

Your FERS benefit is retirement income that behaves like a traditional paycheck replacement: It’s predictable and designed to last your lifetime. This is also the benefit where your insurance premiums for FEHB, FEGLI, FEDVIP and FLTCIP will be deducted. That stability is exactly why waiting — when you can — often improves outcomes.

In broad terms, the pension grows in two main ways: (1) by adding more creditable service time and (2) by raising your “high-3” average salary, which is the daily average of your highest basic pay rates paid over 36 consecutive months. Even a modest pay increase in your last few years can permanently increase your annuity because the formula is applied for life.

There is an additional computation “bonus” for employees who retire at age 62 or later with 20 or more years of service (the 20 years can include credit for unused sick leave). Instead of the calculation providing 1% of your high-3 times your years and months of service, the formula changes to 1.1%. This means that 20 years of service is now worth 22% of the high-3 rather than 20%. If the high-3 were $120,000, this is an increase of $2,400 per year or $200 per month.

Where people get caught is not always the formula — it’s the eligibility rules. Under FERS, an “immediate, unreduced” retirement generally happens when you meet one of the big combinations (such as minimum retirement age — or MRA — with 30 years, age 60 with 20 years or age 62 with at least 5 years).

If you separate at your minimum retirement age with at least 10 years but less than the combinations above (often called “MRA+10”), you can be eligible for an immediate annuity, but it may come with a permanent age reduction equal to 5 percent per year you are under age 62, prorated monthly. In many cases, separating at your MRA with 10 or more years of service (but less than 30 years) and then postponing the start of the annuity is a way to avoid some or all that reduction — so “retiring” and “starting the pension” don’t always have to be the same date.

Two other timing issues matter for many FERS employees. First, cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) on the FERS basic annuity typically do not start until age 62 (with exceptions in certain circumstances). That means leaving at, say, 57 or 60 can create a multi-year period where your pension check stays flat while inflation marches on. Second, some retirees are eligible for the FERS annuity supplement — an additional payment intended to bridge the gap from retirement to age 62, when Social Security becomes available. Eligibility for the supplement depends on your retirement type and timing, so it’s another reason not to retire “in a hurry” without confirming which rule set you are under. The supplement is only payable for employees who retire under age 62 with an immediate, unreduced retirement. MRA + 10 and disability retirements do not qualify and early retirements under VERA and DSR are not eligible for the supplement until reaching the FERS MRA.

That said, retiring sooner can still be a rational choice if you’ve already locked in what you most value — such as eligibility to continue Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) into retirement, or if you’re leaving under an early retirement authority. The key is to separate the emotional reason to retire (time, health, family or burnout) from the financial mechanics and then decide whether the income trade-off is “worth it” for you.

2) Social Security: The strongest “wait” incentive (but not always)

Social Security is where “waiting to claim” can have the biggest impact on the size of your monthly check. You can start as early as age 62, at your Full Retirement Age (FRA) or as late as age 70. Claiming early permanently reduces your benefit; delaying past FRA increases it for each month you wait, up to age 70. For people born in 1943 or later, delayed retirement credits increase benefits by up to 8 percent per year (credited monthly) beyond FRA. After age 70, there is no further increase for delaying. These rules turn Social Security into a longevity hedge: a larger, inflation-adjusted benefit later in life helps protect you if you live longer than average.

How long is average? Consider an unreduced Social Security benefit at FRA of $3,000 per month would be payable at $2,100 per month at age 62 and $3,720 per month by waiting to age 70. Collecting $2,100 per month from age 62 — 82 without adding cost-of-living adjustments or additional earnings after age 62 would add up to $504,000. Collecting $3,000 per month from age 67 — 82 would add up to $540,000; and collecting $3,720 per month from age 70 — 82 would add up to $535,680. Notice that the total amount is not very different. However, if this person lived to age 92, the total amount from age 62 to 92 would be $756,000; from age 67 would be $900,000 and from age 70 would be $982,080. That is more than $225,000 difference in the total received at age 62 compared to waiting until age 70. Cost-of-living adjustments begin at age 62, regardless of the age you claim your benefit.

Work plans matter, too. If you claim Social Security before FRA and continue working, the retirement earnings test can temporarily withhold some benefits when earnings exceed annual limits. This limit is $24,480 in 2026 if under your FRA. Your benefit is reduced by $1 for every $2 earned over this limit. In the year you reach your FRA, the 2026 limit is $65,160 and your benefit is reduced by $1 for every $3 earned over this limit before reaching your FRA. This can surprise new retirees who expected a Social Security check right away while still earning wages. The important nuance is that withheld benefits are not necessarily “lost forever” — your benefit is recalculated later to reflect months when payments were withheld. Still, cash flow timing matters, so it’s wise to consider whether you’re retiring from federal service but continuing in another job.

Social Security claiming is often a household decision, not an individual one. Spousal and survivor benefits can change the best answer — especially if one spouse has a significantly higher earnings record. A practical starting point is to review your Social Security statement and estimate benefits at different start ages. If you’re trying to decide whether you’re “in a hurry,” remember you can retire from federal employment without immediately turning on Social Security, and many people do exactly that to let their Social Security benefit grow. If you can afford to do this without reducing your retirement savings by too much or by working part-time to supplement your FERS retirement, then it is worth considering.

3) TSP: The flexible lever — and the one most affected by taxes

If the pension is the “foundation” and Social Security is the “longevity insurance,” TSP is the flexible middle: It can fill gaps, fund big one-time expenses or provide steady monthly income. That flexibility is also why the timing question isn’t simply “Should I retire?” but “When should I start taking money — and from which bucket?”

Your TSP distributions may include taxable and tax-free payouts. If you receive a TSP distribution or withdrawal before you reach age 59½, in addition to the regular income tax, you may have to pay an early withdrawal penalty tax equal to 10% of any taxable portion of the distribution or withdrawal not rolled over.

If you are a public safety employee as defined in section 72(t)(10)(B)(ii) of the Internal Revenue Code, payments made after you separate from service during or after the year you reach age 50 or have 25 years of service under the TSP.
Up to $5,000 of any payment received within one year following a birth or qualified adoption in accordance with section 72(t)(2)(H) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Annuity payments.
Automatic enrollment refunds.
Payments resulting from total and permanent disability.
Payments resulting from death.
Payments made from a beneficiary participant account.
Up to $1,000 per calendar year of payments used for emergency personal expenses.
Up to $10,000 (or 50 percent of the vested account balance, whichever is less) of any payment received within one year following domestic abuse.
Payments made to an individual with a terminal illness.
Payments made in a year you have deductible medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income.
Payments made as a qualified disaster recovery distribution as defined and limited by section 72(t)(11) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Payments ordered by a domestic relations court.
Substantially equal payments over your life expectancy.

In addition, you will be subject to Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) April 1 of the year after you turn 73 or older and have left federal service if you were born before 1960 (age 75 if born in 1960 or later). A required minimum distribution (RMD) is calculated as illustrated in the following example: If a retired participant reaches age 73 in 2027.

As of Dec. 31, 2026 (the last day of the calendar year immediately preceding the RMD year), the value of the participant’s TSP account is $265,000. Based on the Uniform Lifetime Table for Calculating Minimum Distributions table that can be found on page 23 of the "TSP Tax Rules About TSP Payments" booklet, the expected distribution period (in years) for a 73-year-old individual is 26.5, so the RMD is $265,000 divided by 26.5. Through this calculation, the participant determines that the 2027 RMD is $10,000. RMDs cannot be rolled over to an IRA or eligible employer plan.

If you choose to roll over all or part of a distribution in a year in which you have an RMD, the TSP is required to make sure you satisfy the RMD before any rollover takes place. Distributions of Roth money won’t count toward satisfying your RMD because Roth money in your account isn’t subject to RMDs. In addition to TSP funds, you may also consider other retirement savings and investments that may supplement your lifetime FERS and Social Security retirement benefits.

Because tax rules are complex, you may also wish to speak with a tax advisor or the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The TSP can assist you with your withdrawal but cannot provide tax advice.

]]>

Future shutdowns could temporarily halt senators’ paychecks

Jennifer Shutt, States Newsroom — Thu, 14 May 2026 14:02:09 -0400

The Senate approved a resolution Thursday that will prevent senators from receiving their paychecks during any government shutdowns that begin after this year’s midterm elections.

The voice vote on the measure from Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., will not affect members in the House of Representatives since each chamber of Congress is able to set its own rules and procedures.

The two-page resolution requires the secretary of the Senate to disburse but then hold lawmakers’ paychecks if Congress fails to fund any agency within the federal government on time.

Kennedy said during a floor speech Wednesday he hoped the resolution would reduce the likelihood of future government shutdowns, following three within the last year.

“It’s got to stop,” he said. “Shutting down government should not be our default solution to our refusal to work out our issues and our differences.”

Similar to how federal employees receive back pay after a shutdown ends, Kennedy said his resolution would do the same for senators.

“The senator’s salary just would not be available to that senator while we’re in a shutdown, but once a shutdown is over you’ll get your money,” he said.

In order to get the votes to adopt the resolution, Kennedy said he “had to make a few accommodations,” including that it did not apply to the House and would not take effect before the elections to comply with the 27th Amendment.

Members of Congress earn $174,000 annually, with those in leadership positions making more. The Constitution allows lawmakers to set their own salaries, which are covered by a permanent mandatory appropriation.

Lawmakers and the president, unlike staff who work for them or others throughout the federal government, received their salaries during past shutdowns unless they took action to halt their paychecks.

Several members asked either the House chief administrative officer or the Senate finance clerk to hold their paychecks during the first shutdown.

Congress is supposed to pass the dozen annual government funding bills before the start of the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 but has not completed all of its work on time in three decades.

Lawmakers regularly approve at least one stopgap spending bill to keep federal programs running mostly on autopilot while the House and Senate work to finalize those appropriations bills during the fall, typically sending them to the president sometime in December.

Policy differences and heightened political tensions, however, led to three shutdowns of varying impact during this fiscal year.

The first began last October and lasted through Nov. 12 as Democrats tried unsuccessfully to force Republicans to extend enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.

Lawmakers were able to pass six of the spending bills before a brief partial shutdown took place from Jan. 31 through Feb. 3. The law that ended that funding lapse included five more of the spending bills, leaving the Department of Homeland Security as the only department without its annual appropriations bill.

Democratic demands for constraints on immigration enforcement after federal officers shot and killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis led to a third shutdown for many of the agencies within DHS. That lasted from Feb. 14 through April 30, when Congress approved its final funding bill without new spending for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol.

Republicans plan to use the budget reconciliation process to approve $72 billion that would cover three years of immigration enforcement activities. GOP lawmakers can do that without Democratic votes in the Senate as long as they comply with the rules.

Lawmakers in both chambers have also begun work on the next fiscal year’s batch of 12 government funding bills, though it is highly unlikely they will all become law before the end of September.

That presents the possibility of yet another government shutdown just weeks before voters head to the polls in November’s midterm elections to decide which party will control Congress for the next two years.

]]>

A week of recognition, and a career of service

Tammy Flanagan — Thu, 07 May 2026 15:00:00 -0400

Celebrated annually during the first week of May, Public Service Recognition Week (PSRW) honors the people who serve our nation as federal, state, county, local and tribal government employees.

“Public Service Recognition Week is a chance to thank the people who keep government running and deliver results for the American people every day,” OPM Director Scott Kupor said. “Federal employees take on some of the most important challenges in the country, from protecting our national security to improving how government serves citizens. Their work matters, and this week is about recognizing the impact they make.”

The Partnership for Public Service introduced this celebration 41 years ago, and over the past 25 years they have honored some of the most outstanding public servants. This year’s group includes honorees who revolutionized dairy cattle breeding to improve milk production and animal health, recovered billions of dollars from multinational corporations that schemed to artificially lower their tax liability, halted sophisticated cyber intrusion to the State Department’s email accounts and accomplished groundbreaking methods of addressing air pollution.

Although the number of honorees in 2026 was reduced to only four, over the past 25 years there have been more than 800 civil servants recognized for their remarkable accomplishments that benefit our country and build trust in our government. Despite the disruptions in the federal workforce, federal employees continue to work across the country and around the world to find ways to prevent drugs from killing our citizens, prevent diseases from destroying our families, find solutions to transportation problems, forecast weather to minimize the loss of lives when a natural disaster strikes, protect our nation and countless other ways they help keep our nation safe and continue building our strong democracy.

There are countless federal workers who have a record of steady promotions to higher grade levels and increasing responsibility, but those records do not always show the sense of accomplishment felt at each advancement. Federal service has allowed eager young employees to move through the ranks by showing hard work and dedication to their mission. Federal workers build on their years of experience to become mentors to younger workers and examples to the public. There are countless opportunities for advancement and the option of doing many different types of work requiring hundreds of different skill sets, educational prerequisites and levels of experience.

Federal employees are often recognized for exemplary performance by receiving time off awards, pay increases and cash bonuses as a tangible way of showing thanks for a job well done. But a pat on the back by a fellow employee or a word of praise from a supervisor or a member of the public can also go a long way toward making that employee feel appreciated.

From my perspective of meeting employees near the end of their federal careers, I have noticed their sense of pride when looking back over the years of dedicated public service. When federal workers are ready to move on to a new chapter of their lives, they never seem to regret the choice that they made to enter a career of serving the American public. Federal employees prepare for retirement through diligent savings and thoughtful planning to produce a comfortable life after government. Retirement from federal service is not only a reward, but a well-deserved benefit.

Thank you to all the federal workers and employee annuitants who have crossed my path either in my everyday life or in my work of helping understand and obtain their retirement benefits. I have admired your dedication to your goals and the many accomplishments you have achieved.

I have often been on the receiving end of professional, patient and caring assistance from employees at the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration and the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. The retirement specialists and payroll office workers are the unsung heroes of the retirement process. If you are a federal employee planning to retire or who has already transitioned into retirement, know that despite the challenges faced by an overwhelming workload, the employees who are working for you deserve your appreciation, not only this week, but throughout the year.

]]>