OPM Issues Final Rule on Federal Employees Health Benefits Program

Targeted News Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 -- The Office of Personnel Management published the following rule in the Federal Register:

Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Self Plus One Enrollment Type

A Rule by the Personnel Management Office on 09/17/2015

Publication Date: Thursday, September 17, 2015

Agency: Office of Personnel Management

Dates: This rule is effective September 17, 2015.

Effective Date: 09/17/2015

Entry Type: Rule

Action: Final rule.

Document Citation: 80 FR 55726

Page: 55726 -55739 (14 pages)

CFR: 5 CFR 890

5 CFR 892

RIN: 3206-AN08

Document Number: 2015-23348

Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2015-23348

Action

Final Rule.

Summary

The United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing a final rule to amend the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program regulations to add an additional enrollment type called "self plus one" for premium rating and family member eligibility purposes.

DATES:

This rule is effective September 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chelsea Ruediger at [email protected] or (202) 606-0004.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on December 2, 2014 to amend title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations parts 890 and 892 to include a self plus one enrollment type to comply with the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act. During the comment period on the proposed rule, OPM received 64 comments including 5 from Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program carriers, 2 from employee organizations or unions, 1 from a carrier organization, and 56 from individuals, many of them enrollees in the FEHB Program. These comments are addressed below.

General Comments Regarding Self Plus One

OPM received a variety of comments, mostly from FEHB enrollees, expressing excitement about the self plus one enrollment type. Commenters indicated that the enrollment type will benefit them personally and financially.

One commenter requested justification for the implementation of the self plus one enrollment type and expressed concern over the level of complexity that this additional statutorily required enrollment type introduces to consumer choice in the FEHB Program. The commenter noted that under the current two-tier system, "the typical enrollee . . . has a choice of about 20 plan options" and projected that options available for families may double and premiums might vary greatly.

OPM is updating 5 CFR parts 890 and 892 to comply with provisions of the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act. This more closely aligns insurance offerings for Federal employees with those available in the commercial market and to more equitably spread costs among the enrollment types offered.

OPM is aware that creation of a new enrollment tier may create additional complexity. However, this complexity is limited because the rule only introduces a new enrollment type. Benefits design will not differ from other enrollment types offered within the same plan option, which minimizes the complexity introduced by the rule. To alleviate potential concerns about complexity during the introductory year, section 892.207(d) has been amended in this final rule to include a one-time limited enrollment period to be held in early 2016. Final dates for the Limited Enrollment Period will be announced by OPM following the publication of this rule. During this period, enrollees will be allowed to decrease enrollment from self and family to self plus one. Enrollment changes made in conjunction with the limited enrollment period will be effective on the first day of the first pay period following the one in which the appropriate request is received by the employing office. Because enrollees who do not participate in premium conversion (pre-tax deduction of premiums), including annuitants, may decrease their enrollment at any time, this limited enrollment period is intended only for premium conversion participants. No new enrollments, changes in plan or plan option, or increases in enrollment will be allowed in conjunction with the limited enrollment period.

In advance of Open Season each year, OPM, agencies and carriers inform employees and annuitants of their enrollment options and provide them with decision-making tools. Given the addition of the self plus one enrollment type, this communications strategy will be augmented for the 2015 Open Season. OPM communications will encourage enrollees to carefully review the options available to them for plan year 2016.

An FEHB carrier requested clarification that "enrollees will need to make a positive election through their agency or retirement office in order to switch from self only or self and family to self plus one." This statement is correct. Just as is the case under the current two-tier system, enrollees must inform their agency, either through an electronic or paper copy of the Standard Form 2809, when they increase or decrease coverage. Agencies are responsible for submitting this information to carriers. This requirement will be no different for self plus one.

Comments on Effective Dates

Several commenters requested additional information about the timing of the implementation of the self plus one enrollment type. Others requested that OPM delay implementation by at least one year in order to conduct additional analysis. Another questioned the decision to implement the new self plus one enrollment option for plan year 2016, as this date was not required by law.

The effective date in this final rule has not been altered. The Bipartisan Budget Act was passed in 2013 and OPM has been working diligently to implement this statutory mandate within a reasonable timeframe. Enrollees who have been looking forward to this change will now be able to select a self plus one enrollment type during the 2015 Open Season for effective dates in January of 2016.

Comments on Family Member Eligibility

OPM received three comments about family member eligibility. Two commenters asked about the eligibility of domestic partners and cohabitating (unmarried) opposite sex couples. A third comment asked if a sibling could be covered.

Family member eligibility is defined in title 5 U.S. Code section 8901 and includes spouses and children up to age 26. As stated in the supplementary information of the proposed rule, family member eligibility guidelines remain the same as in place under the two tier system. Domestic partners, cohabitating (unmarried) couples, and siblings are not considered eligible family members under the law at this time.

Switching a Covered Family Member

The proposed rule outlined the circumstances in which an enrollee with a self plus one enrollment would be allowed to switch their covered family member. Some commenters expressed concerns that these provisions might lead to adverse selection. OPM believes that adequate protection against adverse selection is provided in the manner in which Qualifying Life Events (QLEs) allowing such a change have been limited. Further, the general rule applies that the change must be consistent with the QLE experienced. The following chart, which was published with the proposed rule, clarifies which QLE codes will allow an enrollee to switch a covered family member outside of Open Season (definitions for each of the event codes can be found on the SF2809 at http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf2809.pdf):

Change ..... Permitted for the following event codes

For Enrollees Participating in Premium Conversion .....

Switch covered family member under a self plus one enrollment ..... 1B, 1C, 1I, 1J, 1M, 1N, 1O, 1P, 1Q, 1R

For Annuitants (decreases in enrollment type are allowed at any time) .....

Switch covered family member under a self plus one enrollment ..... 2A, 2B, 2F, 2G, 2H, 2I, 2J

For Former Spouses Under the Spouse Equity Provision (decreases in enrollment type are allowed at any time) .....

Switch covered family member under a self plus one enrollment ..... 3B, 3C, 3F, 3G, 3H, 3I

For Temporary Continuation of Coverage (TCC) for Eligible Former Employees, Former Spouses, and Children (decreases in enrollment type are allowed at any time) .....

Switch covered family member under a self plus one enrollment ..... 4B, 4C, 4D, 4F, 4G, 4H

For Employees Not Participating in Premium Conversion (decreases in enrollment type are allowed at any time) .....

Switch covered family member under a self plus one enrollment ..... 5B, 5C, 5F, 5G, 5H, 5I, 5J, 5N

One carrier organization requested that OPM require a 30 day advance notice to carriers before allowing a switch in covered family member in order to prevent overpayments as well as verification of alternative health insurance for the family member being removed. OPM declines to make this change. It is expected that carriers will utilize current standard operating procedures to process the switching of a covered family member; generally changes are effective at the beginning of the next pay period after receipt by the agency.

A commenter urged OPM to treat the switch as a cancellation for the family member who is being removed from the self plus one enrollment, thereby rendering the individual ineligible for the 31 day extension of coverage. Just as is the case under the two tier system, under section 890.401(a)(1) eligibility for the 31 day extension of coverage is provided for covered family members whose coverage is terminated other than by cancellation of the enrollment or discontinuance of the plan, in whole or in part. For family members, terminations are typically based on a loss of eligibility such as, in the case of a child, turning age 26; or, in the case of a spouse, a divorce. Cancellation is typically a voluntary election to no longer be covered under an FEHB plan, for example when a family member becomes eligible for other group coverage. Switching a covered family member may occur as the result of either a termination or a cancellation. Therefore, OPM declines to make this change.

One commenter urged OPM to apply a blanket policy against discretionary retroactive switching of a covered family member. Section 892.207(b) has been updated in the final rule to include switching a covered family member in order to accommodate this suggestion. Enrollment changes made under section 892.207 are, in general, effective on the first day of the first pay period following the one in which the appropriate request is received by the employing office. In addition, paragraph (f)(2) has been added to section 890.302 in the final rule to specify that the effective date for switching a covered family member will be prospective. A definition of the term "switching a covered family member" has also been added to section 890.101.

One commenter requested that OPM clarify that "enrollees cannot switch the covered family member under the self plus one without a QLE to validate dependent eligibility." As described in the proposed rule, and supported in the final rule, enrollees must experience a QLE in order to switch their covered family member.

One commenter requested additional information about how carriers will be notified of the designated covered family member under the self plus one enrollment. The Standard Form 2809 and electronic enrollment transmissions will be utilized just as they are currently to communicate enrollment information. Additionally, OPM is assessing other methods, including updating enrollment systems government-wide to allow for the transmittal of changes in the designated family member from agencies to carriers.

One commenter asked that OPM require the capture of a Social Security Number for dependents. As this is outside the scope of this rule, we decline to comment at this time.

Qualifying Life Events (QLE)

One commenter requested that OPM clarify whether or not enrollees must experience a QLE in order to decrease enrollment outside of Open Season. Under section 892.208, enrollees who participate in premium conversion must experience a QLE in order to decrease enrollment outside of Open Season. Under section 890.301(e), enrollees who do not participate in premium conversion may decrease enrollment at any time. This final rule has not altered these requirements.

Another commenter requested that OPM clarify that "retired federal employees/annuitants will have the option to change plans and/or enrollment types upon retirement, regardless of Medicare eligibility or age at the time of retirement."

Retirement is not a QLE and therefore no changes may be made based solely on retirement. Retirement is a change from one payroll office to another. After an individual is retired, under the provisions in section 890.301(e), they may decrease enrollment or cancel coverage at any time. QLEs are still required for increasing coverage or changing plans outside of Open Season.

It was requested that OPM clarify the process for handling an annuitant who, upon experiencing the death of her spouse, forgets to decrease her enrollment to self only. As this question is beyond the scope of this regulation, OPM declines to comment at this time.

Additional guidance was requested regarding carrier responsibilities to notify enrollees and agencies when a family member has aged out of eligibility or passed away. OPM encourages carriers to contact their enrollees when a child ages out or if they learn of the death of a covered family member in order to inform the enrollee of their QLE opportunity at that time.

Alternative Enrollment Types

Four commenters suggested alternative enrollment types. One commenter suggested that OPM provide rates based on the number of family members enrolled. Another suggested an enrollment type available to only those enrolled in both FEHB and Medicare. A third commenter suggested that, instead of self plus one, OPM alter eligibility guidelines to allow spouses and dependents to enroll in their own right in self only enrollments. Finally, an FEHB carrier commented that OPM should implement a four-tier system: Self only, employee and spouse, employee and one non-spousal family member, and self and family. Commenters urged OPM to consider methods for encouraging or requiring Medicare enrollment. One suggested that OPM should consider reducing premiums for annuitants enrolled in Medicare as FEHB is the secondary payer. Another expressed concerns that the addition of the self plus one enrollment type would exacerbate an existing problem in which younger enrollees subsidize higher cost annuitants.

OPM is unable to implement these suggested changes. The FEHB statute only allows the following enrollment types: Self only, self plus one, and self and family. Any other enrollment types, including separate enrollment tiers for individuals enrolled in Medicare, would require legislative change.

Definition of Self Plus One

OPM received four comments indicating that the definition of self plus one in the proposed rule, which does not preclude an individual with only one eligible family member from enrolling in self and family, has potentially negative consequences. These commenters indicated the definition, coupled with concerns that self plus one premiums and/or enrollee shares may rise above self and family premiums and/or enrollee shares, could result in revenue shortfall for carriers. They predicted that some consumers with only one eligible family member will likely select a self and family enrollment if the enrollee share is lower, leading to a financial loss for plans with higher claims costs for self plus one enrollments.

Individual choice is, and always has been, one of the hallmarks of the FEHB Program. Before the addition of the self plus one enrollment type, individuals have been free to select a self only or self and family enrollment, regardless of whether or not they have eligible family members. In that tradition, the final rule adopts the proposed rule's provision, providing individuals the freedom to select among all three enrollment types available, regardless of the number of their eligible family members.

One commenter requested that OPM use this opportunity to expressly state that all eligible family members are covered under a self and family enrollment. Current regulatory language, which has not been altered in this rule, already adequately expresses this. Section 890.302(a)(1) states that an enrollment for self and family includes all family member who are eligible to be covered by the enrollment. Further, the definition of self and family, as added by this final rule states that self and family enrollment means an enrollment that covers the enrollee and all eligible family members.

Government Contribution Calculations

The government contribution to premium is calculated based on weighted average of the subscription charges described in 5 U.S. Code section 8906. One commenter points out that most carriers are unable to predict the government contribution for their plans because they do not cover an adequate portion of the total market to estimate actual FEHB enrollment to determine the weighted average. Thus, many plans propose total premiums to OPM without a complete understanding of what the government and enrollee contributions will be, putting them at a disadvantage in a competitive market. Given the additional uncertainty for plan year 2016, with the addition of the self plus one enrollment type, the commenter requested that OPM provide carriers more flexibility to adjust final premium rates during the negotiation process after the government contribution has been calculated. OPM will adhere to standard operating procedures for plan year 2016 final rate negotiations.

An FEHB carrier requested that OPM provide additional information to carriers concerning rate setting for plan year 2016. In addition, they cautioned OPM against applying the same government contribution for both self plus one and self and family enrollments for plan year 2016 as this method might lead to increased "unpredictability of which subscribers will choose which tier." Many commenters requested additional information about the weighted averages that would be used to determine the government contribution for plan year 2016.

The 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act provides OPM with flexibility in the first year that self plus one is offered to "determine the weighted average of the subscription charges that will be in effect for the contract year for enrollments for self plus one under such chapter based on an actuarial analysis." [1] The weighted average is used to calculate the Government contribution, according to a formula set in statute (5 U.S.C. 8906). OPM takes a count of enrollments with Government contributions in March of each year (referred to in the following paragraphs as the "March enrollment count"). This March enrollment count is used to determine the maximum Government contribution for the following plan year. For each enrollment type, OPM sums the product of the new premium and the March enrollment count for each option and divides the sum by the total number of individuals enrolled in that enrollment type.

Because we do not have self plus one data from our March 2015 enrollment count, OPM has determined that it will use the 2015 self and family March enrollment count to calculate the weighted average for both the 2016 self plus one and self and family enrollment types. The weighted average for self plus one will be based on the 2016 self plus one premiums and the 2015 self and family March enrollment count. OPM provides rate-setting guidance to carriers on an annual basis. For the 2016 plan year, OPM requested that carriers propose self plus one premiums that are no greater than self and family premiums. [2] Although OPM does not expect this policy to change in the out years, the right to reevaluate is reserved.

Rate-Setting and the Cost of Self Plus One

Comments were received that indicated the addition of the self plus one enrollment type would translate into cost savings for enrollees with only one eligible family member. Commenters in this category praised OPM for implementing the new enrollment type. Other commenters expressed concerns about rate setting for the new self plus one enrollment type. In particular, a concern that self and family premiums would rise drastically in plan year 2016 in order to accommodate the new self plus one enrollment type. It was suggested that OPM impose a 10% cap on such growth in the final rule, especially for the first year of implementation. Others expressed concerns about the differential between the three enrollment tiers. OPM was asked to clarify whether or not the enrollee share of a self plus one enrollment would be less than or exactly equal to two self only enrollments. One carrier projected that, although self plus one premiums might not rise above self and family premiums, the differential between the two would be negligible, calling into question the cost-benefit of such a change given the high administrative burden of implementation.

Other commenters expressed concerns about actual claims costs. One highlighted the unique nature of the FEHB risk pool because the annuitant population is combined with the active employee population, indicating that many annuitants, who traditionally have higher claims costs, have only one eligible family member and therefore might make up the bulk of self plus one enrollees. Two commenters pointed out that HMO plans might be especially impacted. They expressed concerns that, if OPM were to require that self plus one total premiums remain below self and family total premiums, the end result would be an even more dramatic increase for self and family enrollees. The commenter projected that this change would render some regional HMOs non-competitive, forcing them out of the FEHB market.

The final rule does not set differentials between tiers, nor does it impose caps on premium growth. Under the three tier system, carriers will set rate differentials between tiers that are appropriate for the expected population, just as they do under the two tier system. An artificial cap is unwarranted because plans must set rates that reflect the costs of the population they will be covering. Further, enrollees have free choice to stay in their current plan or shop for a less expensive plan or option that meets their needs. Because the FEHB Program is market-based, artificial caps on premium are likely to cause adverse consequences such as inadequate rates for some products.

One commenter requested that rate information be provided earlier than normally scheduled to provide individuals adequate time to analyze their options. Given the rate negotiation process outlined in section 890.501, OPM cannot set the government contribution before September 1st for the following plan year.

Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis

Commenters who discussed OPM's Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) in the proposed rule asked that OPM provide a more robust analysis for public comment. Four commenters suggested that the RIA provided in the proposed rule was insufficient under requirements outlined in the Administrative Procedures Act, Executive Order 12866, Executive Order 13563, and the Congressional Review Act. They suggested a delay in implementation in order to conduct additional analysis, provide details to the public, and allow for an additional comment period. One commenter stated OPM had failed to properly justify the change and to explain the potential impacts on the FEHB Program. Multiple commenters disagreed with OPM's assertion that self plus one premiums would likely be lower than self and family. One commenter noted that the RIA failed to discuss the possibility of rate differentials between the enrollment types. The commenter suggested that all carriers should be required to maintain the same differentials between their plan tiers. The commenter requested an actuarial analysis of the method that will be utilized to determine the weighted average of all FEHB plans for plan year 2015.

OPM believes the analysis provided in the proposed rule fulfills legal requirements. As noted in the proposed and reiterated in the final rule, this change is being implemented to comply with the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act. In addition, this change aligns insurance offerings with those available in the commercial market and more equitably spreads costs among the enrollment types offered.

Information Provided to Carriers

Four commenters requested that we clarify information for carriers. One commenter asked OPM to release details, including the final rule, by March 31, 2015 to allow carriers ample time to prepare. Another commenter asked for additional details on enrollment and eligibility under the new self plus one enrollment type; however, provided no specific questions.

One commenter asked that OPM clarify benefits structures including deductibles and out of pocket maximums. OPM addressed these issues through normal carrier communications including the annual call letter, carrier letters, and teleconferences. OPM utilizes several methods for communicating with carriers including, but not limited to carrier letters, brochure tools, and teleconferences. Some of the information requested during the public comment period either has already been released or is forthcoming via these alternative communication methods.

Systems Updates

OPM received three comments relative to the systems updates required to implement the new self plus one enrollment type. One commenter also asked that the brochure template language be available early. Two commenters suggested that OPM improve processes by which dependent information is communicated to carriers. An employee organization noted that the number of enrollment changes in Open Season 2015 is likely to far exceed the average Open Season and expressed concerns that the overall system would not be able to handle this increased number of enrollment changes.

OPM has carefully and deliberately been reviewing, modifying, and testing internal systems to ensure that enrollee information is accurately collected and disseminated to carriers. In addition, numerous communications have been distributed on the required systems changes with agencies, carriers, and enrollment systems. We are confident that, through all of these efforts, all necessary systems updates will be completed in time for a smooth implementation of the self plus one enrollment type in plan year 2016.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

OPM has reviewed this final rule for PRA implications and has determined that it does not apply to this section.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public, health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). A regulatory impact analysis must be prepared for major rules that may have economically significant effects (i.e., effects of $100 million or more in at least one year). Given that there are approximately 8.2 million members participating in the FEHB Program, including approximately one million two-person self and family enrollments, and participation involves hundreds of dollars per member per month, we cannot rule out the possibility that this final rule's changes to the FEHB Program will have effects that meet the threshold for economic significance. We do expect the overall federal budget impact of this final rule to be net neutral, though this is subject to uncertainty.

The new enrollment tier will align FEHB Program offerings with the commercial market and serve to more equitably spread costs across different enrollment types; in other words, it will shift costs among program participants. For plan year 2016, OPM has required that that the self plus one enrollment type have total premiums no greater than self and family total premiums.

Current FEHB Enrollment Trends

In plan year 2015 there were over 4 million FEHB contracts. This includes 1.89 million self only contracts (47%) and 2.13 million self and family contracts (53%).

During a typical year, approximately 6% of FEHB enrollees change their enrollment by selecting a new plan option or a new enrollment type (approximately 8% of active employees and 4% of annuitants). However, as this is the first time the FEHB Program has experienced a large-scale programmatic change as the addition of a new enrollment type, it is expected that movement will be greater in the coming years as enrollees learn more about their options.

Predicting Enrollment Trends Under the Three Tier System

In order to estimate the impact of the addition of the self plus one enrollment type, OPM has conducted an analysis to predict the potential shift in enrollment that may occur.

OPM determined that the following movement patterns were possible:

FEHB eligible individuals who are currently not enrolled may choose to enroll in FEHB after self plus one becomes available.

Current self only enrollees may choose to increase enrollment to include coverage for an eligible family member who is not currently covered under an FEHB enrollment.

Current self only enrollees may choose to cancel coverage in order to be covered under a spouse or parent's self plus one FEHB enrollment.

Current self and family enrollees with only one eligible family member may choose to decrease to a self plus one enrollment.

Current self and family enrollees with two or more eligible family members may choose to decrease to a self plus one enrollment to cover only one of their eligible family members.

Some FEHB enrollees in either self only or self and family may choose to cancel their enrollments.

Enrollees in either self only or self and family may choose to remain in their current enrollment type.

Based on available data and experience, OPM estimates that much of the movement that will occur will result in a shift from one enrollment type to another. There are a limited number of circumstances where the addition of the self plus one enrollment type may result in new FEHB enrollees or in enrollees leaving the program. It is difficult to estimate how many individuals may newly enroll in the program. Most employees who do not participate in the FEHB Program do so because they have access to other insurance options. This rule will not alter access to other insurance for FEHB eligible employees. Also, because OPM does not have government-wide eligible and covered family member data, it is not known exactly how many individuals are covered under self and family enrollments, nor is it known how many eligible family members exist but are not currently covered because the enrollee has chosen a self only enrollment.

In order to learn more about potential movement between enrollment types, OPM requested data on covered enrollees and family members from carriers with the 2014 rate proposals. Carriers reported that over one million self and family contracts had only one dependent listed. Of those enrollments, approximately 60% were annuitants and 40% were active employees. While this number does not capture the universe of enrollees who may choose a self plus one enrollment, it does provide a starting place for estimating the potential movement between tiers.

OPM also examined enrollment data for the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program (FEDVIP). FEDVIP has offered self plus one as an enrollment option since its inception in 2007. There are currently approximately 2.7 million FEDVIP contracts. Of those, 41% are self only, 32% are self plus one, and 27% are self and family.

Comparing FEHB and FEDVIP enrollment patterns may be illustrative because the pool of eligible individuals is roughly the same. Most FEDVIP enrollees are also eligible for FEHB. However, there are some key differences between the programs. First, family member eligibility guidelines are slightly different. Eligible children are covered under FEDVIP enrollments until the age of 22 whereas eligible children are covered under FEHB until the age of 26. Second, FEDVIP has lower participation as it is an employee-pay-all program with no government contribution towards the premium. In addition, benefits offered in standalone dental and vision programs are limited, and therefore, enrollee behavior and motivation based on those benefits would be different.

Examining the types of movement that are possible and comparing FEHB enrollment trends with other programs provides only a limited view of the complex factors that affect enrollment decisions for enrollees. Enrollee choice and movement is an individualized decision based on the needs of the enrollee and their dependents. Self plus one uptake is dependent on a combination of factors including premiums, benefits structures, and the level of communication from agencies, carriers, and OPM about new enrollment options.

For most enrollees, the enrollee share for self plus one will be lower than for self and family; however, it is possible that, because of the statutory formula used to calculate the government contribution, some plans may have a higher enrollee share for self plus one than for self and family. This will make it even more important for enrollees to review their enrollment options before selecting a plan and an enrollment type that meets their needs. OPM is implementing a robust communications strategy to ensure that as many enrollees as possible are aware of the new self plus one enrollment type.

Plan design remains the same between enrollment types offered in the same plan option. Therefore, OPM expects that cognitive costs for enrollees would be relatively low. For those enrollees that do not typically reevaluate their enrollment every Open Season, the cognitive costs of a review of the plans, plan options, and enrollment types available may well be worth incurring, as they may discover better alternatives (though these improvements may represent transfers from other members of society, rather than benefits to society as whole). Ultimately, actual enrollment decisions cannot be predicted with precision. Further, it will likely take years for enrollment numbers to reach an equilibrium following this Program change. [3]

Cost Analysis

OPM's Fiscal Year 2014 Congressional Budget Justification [4] included a projection that the addition of the self plus one enrollment would have a net neutral impact on the Federal budget. This projection, based on FEHB carriers' relative costs and population distributions, included the following assumptions:

The average premium for self plus one coverage will be approximately 94% of the cost of existing self and family coverage.

The average premium for self and family coverage will be approximately 107% of the cost of existing self and family coverage.

33% of active employees with existing self and family will shift to self plus one coverage.

Only 20% of annuitants with existing self and family coverage will retain that coverage (80% will shift to self plus one).

As discussed above, there are several ways in which enrollees may choose to change their enrollment based on the addition of the self plus one enrollment type. The magnitudes of these changes (and the effects experienced by the government that depend on FEHB participants' behavior) would be correlated with the amount that participant premium contributions change. If, as shown above, self plus one premiums are only slightly lower than baseline self and family premiums, then two-person families will have little incentive to transfer family members from other coverage to FEHB. Similarly, if self and family premiums increase only slightly as a result of this rule, then families larger than two people will have little incentive to switch some or all of their members from FEHB to other health insurance coverage. As a result, in this example, a change in the cost of the Program would be contingent, in part, upon the amount of switching into or out of FEHB from/to other health insurance.

Current enrollees with self and family coverage who only have one dependent and choose to decrease enrollment to self plus one, will likely benefit from lower premiums. Those with more than one dependent covered under a self and family enrollment will likely incur higher premiums. A large percentage of annuitants who currently have self and family coverage would likely benefit from the lower total premiums of a self plus one enrollment type, resulting in score-able savings to the government because the government share of annuitant premiums will decrease.

OPM estimated that, in total, savings for annuitants and the government would rise above $450 million in the first year of self plus one. Conversely, costs for non-Postal employees and the government would rise about $450 million for the same time frame. This converse relationship between costs associated with annuitants and employees continues into future year projections and results in the overall net-neutral projection.

Actual cost shifting cannot be measured until rate negotiations are finalized and enrollment changes take place. As enrollees shift from self only and self and family enrollments, OPM will closely monitor the effect on premiums. If premiums for active employees with two or more covered family members rise, there will be increasing costs to government agencies (assuming appropriation of necessary funds). [5]

The impact of this final rule hinges upon the relative premiums for self plus one and self and family enrollment types. Because the self and family option includes coverage for a larger number of people, a natural assumption would be that premiums would be lower for a self plus one enrollment type than for a self and family enrollment type. For plan year 2016, OPM instructed carriers to propose total premiums for self plus one that were less than or equal to total premiums for self and family. In that case, several rule-induced outcomes are likely:

Federal employees and annuitants who, in the absence of the rule, would choose self and family enrollment for themselves and either a spouse or a child would switch to a self plus one enrollment, resulting in lower total premium payments between employees, annuitants and the federal government.

Federal employees and annuitants choosing self and family enrollment for themselves and at least two family members would experience an increase in premiums and therefore, in some cases, may choose to switch from FEHB to an alternative health insurance option. If all such families continued with FEHB participation, the government would experience an increase in premium payments that would (in theory) exactly offset the decreases associated with two-person families switching from self and family to self plus one enrollment; however, any switching away from FEHB would mitigate the premium increases experienced by the federal government, instead potentially leading to payment increases by any contributors to the newly-chosen insurance options (an obvious example would be the employer of a federal employee's or annuitant's spouse if that employer sponsors the newly-chosen insurance).

Federal employees and annuitants who, in the absence of the rule, would choose self only enrollment in spite of having a spouse who would be eligible for coverage under self and family enrollment may choose self plus one enrollment. This might occur if a self and family premium is greater than the combined premiums for a federal employee's self only enrollment and a spouse's self only enrollment in health insurance through his or her own non-federal employer, but the relevant FEHB self plus one premium is less than the combined premiums. [6] In this type of scenario in which the federal employee's or annuitant's enrollment increases, the federal government would pay more in premiums (relative to a baseline in which this rule is not finalized) but the federal employee's or annuitant's family would pay less. Any contributors to the insurance in which the family member would be enrolled in the absence of the rule--such as the non-federal employer of the federal employee's spouse in the preceding example--would also pay less.

To the extent that new patterns of enrollment do not change how society uses its resources (i.e., amount or quality of medical services provided), then the effects described above would be transfers between members of society, rather than social costs or benefits.

It is possible that two-person families are, on average, less healthy than larger families; indeed, multiple comments to the docket provided evidence that some plans' expenditures for two-person enrollments are higher than for enrollments with three or more total family members. For the 2016 plan year, because OPM has requested that carriers propose self plus one premiums no greater than self and family premiums, plans with this medical expenditure pattern will presumably set equal premiums for self plus one and self and family enrollment types. In the event that OPM does not repeat this request for future years, plans with higher average expenditures for two-person than for larger families will presumably set premiums higher for self plus one enrollment than for self and family enrollment. If this pattern--in which self plus one premiums are greater than or equal to self and family premiums--held universally, the lack of premium decrease to give federal employees and annuitants an incentive to switch from self and family to self plus one enrollment would lead to the rule's enrollment impact being negligible. [7] However, as indicated by docket submissions, relative expenditures on (and thus premiums for) two-person and larger enrollments differ across plans, and hence the effect of adding the self plus one option may be to increase switching between plans, as federal employees and annuitants with one eligible family member gravitate toward plans with relatively low self plus one premiums and federal employees and annuitants with multiple eligible family members gravitate toward plans with relatively low self and family premiums. Plan switching of this type would lead to further changes in premiums and several iterations of switching activity and premium adjustments may occur.

Additionally, the rule imposes implementation costs, such as the costs of systems updates, on FEHB-participating health insurance plans, federal agencies, and on OPM itself. These expenses are encompassed in existing workloads. OPM has no specific estimate for these costs, but expects them to be marginal.

Though regulatory alternatives to this rule are limited due to the statutory mandate, OPM did consider delaying implementation of the rule until the 2017 plan year. OPM rejected this option for two reasons. First, delaying implementation will not provide additional information. Because OPM contracts with a number of carriers, proposed rates are proprietary and cannot be released publically without compromising confidential negotiation processes. Until first year negotiations are completed and enrollment changes occur, OPM would not have a precise understanding of the impact of the self plus one enrollment type on premiums.

Second, implementation has already been delayed. After the passage of the 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act, the first year that implementation would have been possible was plan year 2015. OPM determined that this was not adequate time to implement the new enrollment type and chose to delay implementation until 2016. OPM, carriers, and Federal agencies are well into the implementation process. Rate negotiations between OPM and FEHB carriers have begun under the assumption that the 2016 plan year would include the self plus one enrollment type. Agencies and carriers are currently implementing the systems changes required to accommodate three tier enrollments. Delaying implementation would adversely impact the Federal benefits Open Season which is scheduled to begin in early November of this year.

Congressional Review Act

OPM has determined that this regulatory action is not subject to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801-08, because it relates to agency management and personnel. The program is not statutorily for general application but rather governs employment fringe benefits for Federal employees, annuitants and their families. Moreover, OPM has been statutorily granted discretion in terms of deciding how its actions may affect non-agency parties, such as carriers, by its authority to regulate enrollment. See, 5 U.S.C. 8905(a), 8905(g)(2), and 8913(b).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the regulation only adds a self plus one enrollment tier to the current self only and self and family enrollment tiers under FEHB.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866, Regulatory Review

This rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Orders 13563 and 12866.

Federalism

We have examined this rule in accordance with Executive Order 13132, Federalism, and have determined that this rule will not have any negative impact on the rights, roles and responsibilities of State, local, or tribal governments.

List of Subjects

5 CFR Part 890

Administrative practice and procedure

Government employees

Health facilities

Health insurance

Health professions

Hostages

Iraq

Kuwait

Lebanon

Military personnel

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Retirement

5 CFR Part 892

Administrative practice and procedure

Government employees

Health insurance

Taxes

Wages

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Beth F. Cobert,

Acting Director.

Footnotes

1. Full text available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113hjres59enr/pdf/BILLS-113hjres59enr.pdf.

2. United States Office of Personnel Management, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program Call Letter, Fiscal Year 2016, Issued March 13, 2015. https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/healthcare/carriers/2015/2015-02.pdf 3. As discussed in more detail elsewhere in this analysis, plan switching--in which federal employees and annuitants with one eligible family member gravitate toward plans with relatively low self plus one premiums and federal employees and annuitants with multiple eligible family members gravitate toward plans with relatively low self and family premiums--would lead to further changes in premiums, and several iterations of switching activity and premium adjustments may occur before the new equilibrium is reached. Moreover, because health insurance decisions tend to be characterized by inertia, the behavioral changes discussed here and throughout this analysis may be relatively rare when this rule is first implemented and then become more widespread over time, as turnover occurs in the federal workforce and there is an accumulation of qualifying life events that cause FEHB participants to reconsider their health insurance choices.

4. United States Office of Personnel Management, Congressional Budget Justification Performance Budget, Fiscal Year 2014, Submitted April 2013, available at https://www.opm.gov/about-us/budget-performance/budgets/congressional-budget-justification-fy2014.pdf. See also Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, dated December 11, 2013, available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/Bipartisan%20Budget%20Act% 20of%202013.pdf. In estimating potential premium changes, OPM used data on FEHB enrollees' medical expenditures, while CBO used data on medical expenditures for the general population. Because of the large number of annuitants in the FEHB enrolled population, two-person FEHB enrollments tend to have higher costs than two-person enrollments in the nation as a whole, thus explaining some of the difference between OPM's and CBO's estimates.

5. United States Office of Personnel Management, Congressional Budget Justification Performance Budget, Fiscal Year 2014, Submitted April 2013, available at https://www.opm.gov/about-us/budget-performance/budgets/congressional-budget-justification-fy2014.pdf. See also Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013, dated December 11, 2013, available at http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/Bipartisan%20Budget%20Act% 20of%202013.pdf.

6. Similarly, federal employees and annuitants who, in the absence of the rule, would choose not to participate in the FEHB Program may choose a self plus one enrollment. For example, this outcome might occur if the self plus one option available in the FEHB Program is less expensive than either a family or plus-one enrollment available via a federal employee's spouse or the combined premiums for the federal employee's self only enrollment and the spouse's self only enrollment.

7. This negligible-impact outcome may not occur if the government contribution, as determined by statutory formula, was such that enrollee contributions were lower for self plus one enrollments than for self and family enrollments even in cases where total premiums for self plus one enrollments were greater than or equal to total premiums for self and family enrollments.

Editor's Note: Regulatory text for this document has been omitted. If you are interested in this material, send an e-mail to [email protected].

Myron Struck, editor, Targeted News Service, Springfield, Va., 703/304-1897; [email protected]; http://www.targetednews.com

-1226920