Shows & Panels
- The 2014 Big Picture on Cyber Security
- AFCEA Answers
- Ask the CIO
- Connected Government
- Consolidating Mission-critical Systems
- Constituent Servicing
- Continuous Monitoring: Tools and Techniques for Trustworthy Government IT
- The Data Privacy Imperative: Safeguarding Sensitive Data
- Eliminating the Pitfalls: Steps to Virtualization in Government
- Federal Executive Forum
- Federal Tech Talk
- Government Cloud Brokerage: Who, What, When, Where, Why?
- Government Mobility
- Mission-critical Apps in the Cloud
- Mobile Device Management
- The Modern Federal Threat Landscape
- The Path from Legacy Systems
- Understanding the Intersection of Customer Service and Security in the Cloud
Shows & Panels
Jimmy Choo at Payless Shoes?
Tuesday - 11/27/2012, 2:00am EST
In a perfect work world, our employer would offer us a designer health plan. Like so:
So what we are looking at, in the perfect health plan world, is a plan designed around us. And one that would change as we got larger, older, no longer had dependent children and as our aches, pains and medical bills grew.
The solution is a self-designed plan, but at group rates. In group plans, everybody pays the same premiums and gets the same coverage in the same plans. Older people (and childless couples) help subsidize people with kids. Younger, healthier people help subsidize older workers, etc. That's a group plan. Hence group rates like the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
It covers more than 8 million people from current and retired members of Congress to the youngest civil servant to the oldest federal retiree and their spouses and dependents - a lot of people. And the government pays about 70 percent of the premium tab. And that percentage stays the same even as premiums go up.
Many people inside the government think the FEHBP — with 20 to 30-plus choices — think it could be a lot better. If it was designed by them and for them. Many people outside of government would kill to get into the FEHBP, even if it meant getting a government job or marrying a very ugly or unpleasant federal worker.
Yesterday's column was about one of the most common complaints feds (mostly couples without kids) have about the FEHBP — the fact that each plan has only two options: self-only or family. And the fact that the government defines a family as two or more people with self-only as one person. The couples argue that there should be another choice, a self-plus plan that would cover two people but at lower premiums than the family plan.
The idea is not new. Studies have shown that it would shatter the group plan concept because, if it was allowed, it would soon be filled by older, less healthy couples who would cost the group more money.
Nick S., a retired fed with a big family, seems to get it. He commented:
"...I can understand why someone without kids would want another option under FEHB rather than self-only and self and family. But there is a fairness/insurance consideration here. At one time my self and family option covered me, my wife, and our seven children. Now that it's just me and my wife, and we're in our 70s, our health care expenses are about the same as when we had all our kids home. So I think it's only fair that I continue to pay for self and family, even though seven fewer people are insured."Bottom line is that people should concentrate on hunting for the best health plan in the remaining weeks of the hunting season. The FEHBP, if feds are lucky and budget-cutters don't come after it, isn't going to change. That's why people need to concentrate on the choices they have and shop around. Tomorrow's Your Turn radio show features Walton Francis as our guest.