[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 115 (Tuesday, August 16, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 16, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE REFORM PLAN DETRIMENTAL TO FEDERAL 
                     EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFIT PLAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Klink). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, and June 10, 1994, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf] is recognized during morning business for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the detrimental effects of 
the Clinton-Gephardt health care bill on the Federal Employees Health 
Benefit Plan [FEHBP] and what Federal employees and retirees and the 
groups that represent them should be focusing on.
  For most Federal employees and retirees, health care security is 
spelled FEHBP: the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan. Over the past 
year of health care debate, the FEHBP has been threatened with 
abolishment, by the Clinton plan, or dramatic changes that would alter 
the benefits that Federal employees have negotiated over the years--
Clinton-Gephardt and Clinton-Mitchell.
  The FEHBP, however, is not broken and does not need the Clinton or 
the Clinton-Gephardt fix. In fact, it is a shining example of what is 
right in our health care system and should be a model for reform of 
those things that are wrong in the private sector. The FEHBP is built 
on two solid principles: consumer choice and market competition. These 
principles work in concert to provide the best possible health care 
plan and the most inexpensive cost. In 1994, the average premium 
increase in the FEHBP has been 3 percent, far outperforming private, 
employer-based insurance, where employees have little or no personal 
choice over benefits or price. Moreover, about 40 percent of FEHBP 
enrollees benefited from a reduction in premiums.
  The FEHBP should be the model for reform and is a splendid example of 
how the private sector could work given the appropriate market reforms 
and incentives. The FEHBP does not have a huge bureaucracy managing the 
almost 400 plans which provide a wide array of choice in the FEHBP. The 
34-year-old law creating the FEHBP is only 26 pages long, with 83 pages 
of rules in the Code of Federal Regulations, and another 93 pages of 
instructions in the Federal Personnel Manual. Most Government-run 
programs could fill a library. Furthermore, there are only 144 
administrative staff that implement the program and only 1 percent of 
each plan's premium costs are set aside for OPM's administration of the 
system. Little redtape and low overhead result in lower health 
insurance premiums which saves money for Federal employees and retirees 
and the American taxpayer.
  Consumer choice and market competition provide the following key 
features of the FEHBP:
  The FEHBP permits Federal workers to choose different plans as well 
as very different benefit packages.
  The FEHBP allows the consumer to decide whether a plan is a too 
expensive or a good value for their hard earned dollar.
  Federal employees with preexisting conditions are not denied 
coverage.
  Federal employees pick and keep their plans. Those decisions are not 
reserved to administrative personnel.
  The FEHBP is not burdened by premium caps or price controls.
  Federal employees around the country should ask their Representatives 
and Senators to reform America's health care system in the image and 
likeness of the FEHBP--a proved effective, market-based, consumer-
oriented system. Feds should not settle for the untested Clinton-
Gephardt or Clinton-Mitchell plan. I understand that the House 
bipartisan legislation, the so called Rowland-Bilirakis bill, which 
came out yesterday, preserves the FEHBP as does the Michel bill.
  Feds have recently received assurances that FEHBP will be preserved 
and they will have as good a plan or better under the new government 
scheme. But those proposals still include dramatic changes to the 
FEHBP: a mandated benefits package that alters what many employees 
currently receive, a different risk pool that could raise rates, and 
reduced hospitalization coverage to name a few. The Capitol Hill 
newspaper, Roll Call, accurately noted, ``FEHBP is more attractive than 
Mrs. Clinton's own proposal . . . federal employees will lose their 
breadth of choice if the Clinton plan is enacted.''
  Proposals for Federal employees to get supplemental packages to 
compensate for what they would lose by being included in the Clinton-
Gephardt plan are a risky gamble that could result in reduced benefits. 
Office of Personnel Management Director James King wrote to the First 
Lady last year, ``I think it is important to FEHBP population be given 
the opportunity to see that national health reform is working before 
they are transitioned into it.''
  There are a number of commonsense health care reforms that enjoy 
broad-based support such as making insurance plans portable between 
jobs, eliminating preexisting medical conditions, allowing medical 
savings accounts, providing small market insurance reforms and 
reforming medical malpractice. All of these are a part of the 
Republican health care bills, and apparently they are included in the 
House bipartisan approach, and they do not touch the FEHBP nor threaten 
Federal employee.
  The real issue is that the Government should not be fixing what isn't 
broken. Remember it is the Clinton administration which is sending out 
RIF notices by the thousands and cutting back on Federal COLA's. How 
confident are you of the fix Federal employees will get on health care? 
Should Federal employees really risk buying into the Clinton-Gephardt 
plan? I do not think so.

                          ____________________