By Tammy Flanagan, National Institute of Transition Planning - October 29, 2010
The secret is finally out: the Office of Personnel Management still processes retirement claims in 2010 much the same way it did in 1920. The process remains paper-based, requiring a human being to sift through the paperwork documenting an employee's career to be sure that he or she is receiving the proper retirement benefit. [Full Story]
Source:GovernmentExecutive.com
Showing posts with label OPM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label OPM. Show all posts
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
PRC Denies USPS Rate Increase Request
The Postal Regulatory Commission in a unanimous decision has denied the US Postal Service the emergency rate increase it requested earlier this year.
PRC Chair Ruth Goldway said that while the USPS made its case that the recession was an “extraordinary” circumstance, she found that the rate changes requested were actually related to long term market changes.
PRC member Dan Blair concurs in the decision, but does not believe the USPS proved the recession was an exceptional circumstance.
In answer to questions asked at the news conference, Goldway said “Our decision is final.” She also said, however, that she doesn’t know if any of the parties will appeal to the courts.
Goldway also said that the USPS could implement a 1.6-2% increase under the normal price cap process.
Statement of PRC Chairman Ruth Goldway
Full text of the decision
Text of the PRC’s press release:
Washington, DC – The Postal Regulatory Commission today issued Order No. 547 in Docket R2010-4 denying a Postal Service request for an average 5.6 percent rate increase. The Commission found that the Postal Service failed to justiff rate increases in excess of its statutory CPI price cap.
“The Commission finds that the Postal Service has shown the recent recession to be an exigent circumstance but it has failed both to quantify the impact of the recession on its finances and to show how its rate request relates to the resulting loss of mail volume; therefore, we unanimously deny its exigent rate request,” said Chairman Ruth Y. Goldway.
The law requires the Postal Service to demonstrate that any exigent rate adjustments are due to the identified exceptional circumstances. This prevents a bona fide extraordinary or exceptional circumstance from being used as a general rate increase mechanism that would circumvent the price cap system.
The Postal Service’s recent volume losses and multi-billion dollar shortfalls are recognized. However, Commission analysis confirms that the Postal Service’s cash flow problem is not a result of the recession and would have occurred whether or not the recession took place. lt is the result of other, unrelated structural problems and the proposed exigent rate adjustments would neither solve nor delay those problems.
The Postal Service may be unable to continue to meet a statutory 1O-year payment schedule – averaging roughly $5.5 billion per year – to create a fund to pay future retiree health benefit premiums. lt has been unable to fund this obligation from operations, and has instead used up all of its retained earnings and drawn down from its $15 billion borrowing authority. Even with the requested increase, the Postal Service would be unable to meet this annual obligation either in 2011, or in succeeding years.
The Postal Service achieved over $6 billion in cost reductions in 2009. While volume declines outstripped cost reductions during the actual recession, Postal Service cost containment programs are producing results and work hours have declined faster than volumes in 2010.
Related Stories:
Statement of Postmaster General on PRC Ruling, Fully Paying Retiree Health Benefit Mandate
Press release
Five postal workers, three others indicted for mail theft in Alabama
postalnews blog
DMA praises PRC decision as a ‘job saving’ action
Press release
Senator Carper statement on PRC decision to deny rate increase
PRC Chair Ruth Goldway said that while the USPS made its case that the recession was an “extraordinary” circumstance, she found that the rate changes requested were actually related to long term market changes.
PRC member Dan Blair concurs in the decision, but does not believe the USPS proved the recession was an exceptional circumstance.
In answer to questions asked at the news conference, Goldway said “Our decision is final.” She also said, however, that she doesn’t know if any of the parties will appeal to the courts.
Goldway also said that the USPS could implement a 1.6-2% increase under the normal price cap process.
Statement of PRC Chairman Ruth Goldway
Full text of the decision
Text of the PRC’s press release:
Washington, DC – The Postal Regulatory Commission today issued Order No. 547 in Docket R2010-4 denying a Postal Service request for an average 5.6 percent rate increase. The Commission found that the Postal Service failed to justiff rate increases in excess of its statutory CPI price cap.
“The Commission finds that the Postal Service has shown the recent recession to be an exigent circumstance but it has failed both to quantify the impact of the recession on its finances and to show how its rate request relates to the resulting loss of mail volume; therefore, we unanimously deny its exigent rate request,” said Chairman Ruth Y. Goldway.
The law requires the Postal Service to demonstrate that any exigent rate adjustments are due to the identified exceptional circumstances. This prevents a bona fide extraordinary or exceptional circumstance from being used as a general rate increase mechanism that would circumvent the price cap system.
The Postal Service’s recent volume losses and multi-billion dollar shortfalls are recognized. However, Commission analysis confirms that the Postal Service’s cash flow problem is not a result of the recession and would have occurred whether or not the recession took place. lt is the result of other, unrelated structural problems and the proposed exigent rate adjustments would neither solve nor delay those problems.
The Postal Service may be unable to continue to meet a statutory 1O-year payment schedule – averaging roughly $5.5 billion per year – to create a fund to pay future retiree health benefit premiums. lt has been unable to fund this obligation from operations, and has instead used up all of its retained earnings and drawn down from its $15 billion borrowing authority. Even with the requested increase, the Postal Service would be unable to meet this annual obligation either in 2011, or in succeeding years.
The Postal Service achieved over $6 billion in cost reductions in 2009. While volume declines outstripped cost reductions during the actual recession, Postal Service cost containment programs are producing results and work hours have declined faster than volumes in 2010.
Related Stories:
Press release
postalnews blog
Press release
Monday, September 27, 2010
Non-Dependent Children Can Join FEHBP Next Year
Non-dependent children can join FEHBP as of January 1st, 2011. The child doesn't have to be your own. It can be your gay partner's or someone else's. If it is your own child, the child can be married and have their own employer-sponsored insurance. Almost any child living with a federal employee can be added. See the attachments from OPM. Some employees and retirees may overlook this important benefit change this Open Season.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
NARFE Lauds OPM for Consultation on New Voluntary Annuitant FEHBP Option
National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) President Margaret L. Baptiste praised John Berry, director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), for consulting with NARFE on a proposed Medicare-related pilot project in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). The proposed project would test the viability of a voluntary “sub-option” within the FEHBP that would pay all or part of a Medicare Part B (as appropriate) for Medicare-eligible federal annuitants. The proposal was released yesterday in OPM’s “2010 FEHBP Carrier Letter” (also known as the “Call Letter”).
“If proven feasible, the Medicare sub-option could save some federal annuitants money and help to contain costs in FEHBP for workers, retirees and survivors,” said Baptiste. “What’s more, we appreciate that, through our consultation with Director Berry, the call letter clarifies that the ‘sub-option’ would not open the door for separately rated annuitant plans, which we believe would result in retirees and survivors paying substantially higher premiums than other FEHBP enrollees. NARFE would oppose the creation of any FEHBP plan for annuitants with premiums based on their age and health costs.”
The OPM letter stipulates: “We do not support splitting risk pools for annuitants and active employees and believe that these pilots can demonstrate ways of stemming cost growth through strengthened benefits coordination.”
The new coverage would be offered to Medicare-eligible annuitants as a sub-option of an existing FEHBP plan. If an annuitant chose the sub-option of an insurance carrier’s “standard option,” they would pay the same premium share as a worker or retiree enrolled in the traditional standard option. However, unlike the standard plan, the sub-option would pay all or part of a Medicare Part B premium, as appropriate. As a result, an annuitant enrolled in the sub-option would save about $1,200 a year on Part B premiums.
However, a sub-option participant would be required to pay the same deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance as workers or retirees who are age 64 and younger and not yet eligible for Medicare. With the exception of premiums and prescription drug co-payments, most annuitants age 65 and older who are enrolled in Medicare and a traditional FEHBP fee-for-service or preferred provider plan pay no out-of-pocket costs. Therefore, the sub-option could be cost-effective for an annuitant who does not have high out-of-pocket costs. In addition, annuitants might appreciate an option for what is basically seamless coverage, which mirrors what they had while they were on the payroll.
“Given the potential savings to federal annuitants, and the voluntary nature of the pilot, we believe that the Medicare sub-option ought to be given a chance. We are pleased that the Call Letter clarifies that the sub-option will not automatically become a regular feature of FEHBP until OPM evaluates it and decides whether it merits continuation after the second year of the demonstration. NARFE will continue to review the development of the new option with OPM as the pilot project moves forward,” Baptiste added.
NARFE, one of America’s oldest and largest associations, was founded in 1921 with the mission of protecting the earned rights and benefits of America’s active and retired federal workers. The largest federal employee/ retiree organization, NARFE represents the retirement interests of nearly 5 million current and future federal annuitants, spouses, and survivors.
“If proven feasible, the Medicare sub-option could save some federal annuitants money and help to contain costs in FEHBP for workers, retirees and survivors,” said Baptiste. “What’s more, we appreciate that, through our consultation with Director Berry, the call letter clarifies that the ‘sub-option’ would not open the door for separately rated annuitant plans, which we believe would result in retirees and survivors paying substantially higher premiums than other FEHBP enrollees. NARFE would oppose the creation of any FEHBP plan for annuitants with premiums based on their age and health costs.”
The OPM letter stipulates: “We do not support splitting risk pools for annuitants and active employees and believe that these pilots can demonstrate ways of stemming cost growth through strengthened benefits coordination.”
The new coverage would be offered to Medicare-eligible annuitants as a sub-option of an existing FEHBP plan. If an annuitant chose the sub-option of an insurance carrier’s “standard option,” they would pay the same premium share as a worker or retiree enrolled in the traditional standard option. However, unlike the standard plan, the sub-option would pay all or part of a Medicare Part B premium, as appropriate. As a result, an annuitant enrolled in the sub-option would save about $1,200 a year on Part B premiums.
However, a sub-option participant would be required to pay the same deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance as workers or retirees who are age 64 and younger and not yet eligible for Medicare. With the exception of premiums and prescription drug co-payments, most annuitants age 65 and older who are enrolled in Medicare and a traditional FEHBP fee-for-service or preferred provider plan pay no out-of-pocket costs. Therefore, the sub-option could be cost-effective for an annuitant who does not have high out-of-pocket costs. In addition, annuitants might appreciate an option for what is basically seamless coverage, which mirrors what they had while they were on the payroll.
“Given the potential savings to federal annuitants, and the voluntary nature of the pilot, we believe that the Medicare sub-option ought to be given a chance. We are pleased that the Call Letter clarifies that the sub-option will not automatically become a regular feature of FEHBP until OPM evaluates it and decides whether it merits continuation after the second year of the demonstration. NARFE will continue to review the development of the new option with OPM as the pilot project moves forward,” Baptiste added.
NARFE, one of America’s oldest and largest associations, was founded in 1921 with the mission of protecting the earned rights and benefits of America’s active and retired federal workers. The largest federal employee/ retiree organization, NARFE represents the retirement interests of nearly 5 million current and future federal annuitants, spouses, and survivors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)