Postmaster General Pat Donahoe’s proposal to yank postal workers (excluding himself and a few other privileged folks) out of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program has drawn the ire of three unions that represent non- postal federal workers.
The National Treasury Employees Union, American Federation of Government Employees, and the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association have jointly sent a letter to members of the Senate committee that oversees the USPS criticizing the Senate bill, S.1486, that would authorize Donahoe to proceed with his plan.
The unions note that the bill would
“allow the United States Postal Service (USPS) to cherry pick the largest areas of cost savings from FEHBP, which will destabilize the FEHBP and raise costs for federal employees, retirees, and their families. The Office of Personnel Management has estimated that as a result of these provisions, premium increases for employees and retirees remaining in the FEHBP would be 2 percent across the board and could be as high as 35 percent for some plans.”
Postmaster General Pat Donahoe has sent a letter to the editor of Post & Parcel defending his proposed health insurance program for postal workers and retirees. The PMG admits in the letter that most of the claimed savings come from shifting costs to Medicare.
Not surprisingly, the PMG doesn’t explain why, if DonahoeCare is so good, he and his top executives will continue using the allegedly inferior, more expensive Federal Employee Health Benefit Program.
The GAO also estimated that if the proposed health plan had been implemented in 2013, most postal employees and retirees would have had similar or lower premiums compared to the selected Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) plans, with similar or higher levels of coverage for many services. Under the Postal Service sponsored health care plan, a small minority of employees electing full family coverage would pay more for health care benefits, but the overwhelming majority would pay far less immediately, and all employees would pay less over their careers. On average, premiums under the proposed Postal Service’s plan would be 16 percent lower than FEHB premiums.
Read more Letter to the Editor: On the US Postal Service health care plan | Post & Parcel.
United States Postal Service’s have a plan to escape the cost of their retiree pension plan, according to a new government report, but it comes at the expense of the already-embattled Medicare program.
“The primary policy decision for Congress to make with respect to USPS’s proposed health care plan is whether to increase postal retirees’ use of Medicare, which is already facing funding challenges,” the Government Accountability Office reports. “This is because USPS’s proposal would essentially decrease USPS costs but increase Medicare costs.”
via Postal Service’s financial plan: Make Medicare pay our bills | WashingtonExaminer.com.
The controversial plan by the U.S. Postal Service to pull its staffers from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) probably would save USPS lots of money, but the cost would bring significant uncertainties for postal workers.
That’s the finding of a report by the Government Accountability Office, which also indicated that many employees would have to pay more for care under a USPS health insurance program.
via Postal health plan would save USPS money, but workers could pay the price – The Washington Post.
U.S. Postal Service employees may have to choose between higher costs and less coverage under a new health care plan being touted by the agency, according to a government audit.
The USPS plan to opt out of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program would save the agency billions of dollars annually, the Government Accountability Office found in a new report, but it would likely put postal workers at risk of paying higher premiums, incurring more out-of-pocket costs and receiving less insurance coverage for a variety of procedures.
via USPS Plan to Pull Out of Fed Health Benefits Could Cost Postal Workers – Pay & Benefits – GovExec.com.