Fedblog


I wrote on Friday that House Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Republican Darrell Issa was using the specter of changes to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program to try to get the House Democrats' health care reform bill in front of the committee. I wrote at the time "To me, this sounds like a question that could be answered through a simple informational request to the bill's drafters and to OPM itself." And today, Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns said as much in a letter today responding to Issa's request. His staff have been reviewing H.R. 3200 for its impact on FEHBP, and this is what they found. Towns wrote:

I should note initially that the legislation establishes a 5-year grace period for employment-based health plans, which explicitly includes FEHBP. During this period, no substantial changes to the FEHBP would be required. This 5-year period would begin in 2013, providing the Office of Personnel Management and this Committee until 2018--nearly a decade--to make any necessary changes to the FEHBP. During this period, all other group and employment-based health plans will be conducting similar reviews to determine necessary changes.

As for changes to FEHBP, I understand that some administrative and a small number of benefits-related adjustments would be necessary in 2018 in order for all of the individual plans offered under FEHBP to satisfy the applicable requirements of a 'qualified health benefits plan.' However, there will not be a need for a significant overhal of FEHBP, and there likely will not be a need to amend title 5 of the United States Code to either alter the structure of FEHBP or to provide OPM with additional authority.

In other words, don't look for the Oversight and Government Reform committee to be holding health care hearings, but don't worry that major FEHBP changes are on the way, either.

COMMENTS


  • In looking at health care reform, we want to go from no health care to "Cadillac" health care at the public's expense. Instead of looking at the maximum health care benefit that can be provided, lets look at what is needed in the majority of cases, not what is needed in extreme cases. Let's focus on the required care and not the elective care. The American Cancer Society statest that BCBS is adequate, but not "Cadillac" care. Well when I can't afford to drive a Chevy, why should I have "Cadillac" coverage. Years ago there was a presidental candidate that prommised a chicken in every pot, now we are trying to provide a dozen fliet mignons in every skillet, when people could do very well with hamburger.

  • Cadillac Care.... The consumer driven health care option recommnended to me after a brief questionaire was completed as an aide to determine the quote "best" health care option for my needs has not only cost me a fortune but has left me virtually without health care or prescription drug benefits for the remainder of the year. A far cry form adequate much less CADILLAC coverage...Open season cannot get here soon enough. Maybe at that point 'CADILLAC' coverage will be available. It would be a nice change from $200 prescriptions.

Post a Comment

By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.

*
*
*
(you may use HTML tags for style)




*

ABOUT THIS BLOG


Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.

SEARCH THIS BLOG


Archives


2011 |  2010 |  2009 |  2008 |  2007 |  2006 |  2005 |  2004