[Senate Report 106-492]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



106th Congress 
 2d Session                      SENATE                          Report
                                                                106-492
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 942


 
                   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS


                     CHILDREN'S EQUITY ACT OF 1999

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 1688

  TO AMEND CHAPTER 89 OF TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE, RELATING TO THE 
   FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM, TO ENABLE THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT TO ENROLL AN EMPLOYEE AND THE FAMILY OF THE EMPLOYEE IN THE 
   PROGRAM WHEN A STATE COURT ORDERS THE EMPLOYEE TO PROVIDE HEALTH 
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR A CHILD OF THE EMPLOYEE, BUT THE EMPLOYEE FAILS 
            TO PROVIDE THE COVERAGE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES




   October 6, (legislative day, September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be 
                                printed
                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee, Chairman
WILLIAM V. ROTH, Jr., Delaware       JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  CARL LEVIN, Michigan
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
GEORGE VOINOVICH, Ohio               RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            MAX CLELAND, Georgia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
             Hannah S. Sistare, Staff Director and Counsel
                      Dan G. Blair, Senior Counsel
        Judith B. White, Detailee, Subcommittee on International
             Security, Proliferation, and Federal Services
      Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel
                  Lawrence B. Novey, Minority Counsel
           Nanci E. Langley, Minority Deputy Staff Director,
  Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal 
                                Services
                     Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 942
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-492

======================================================================




    FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS CHILDREN'S EQUITY ACT OF 1999

                                _______
                                

 October 6 (legislative day September 22), 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Thompson, from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1688]

    The Committee on Governmental Affairs, to which was 
referred the bill (S. 1688) to amend chapter 89 of title 5, 
United States Code, relating to the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program, to enable the Federal Government to enroll an 
employee and the family of the employee in the program when a 
State court orders the employee to provide health insurance 
coverage for a child of the employee, but the employee fails to 
provide the coverage, and for other purposes, having considered 
the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background.......................................................2
III. Legislative History..............................................3
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
  V. Regulatory Impact Statement......................................3
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................4
VII. Changes in Existing Law..........................................8

                               I. Purpose

    S. 1688, as reported by the Committee on Governmental 
Affairs, amends chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, 
relating to the Federal Employees Health Benefit (FEHBP) 
Program, to enable the Federal Government to enroll an employee 
and the family of the employee in the Program when a State 
court orders the employee to provide health insurance coverage 
for a child of the employee but the employee fails to provide 
the coverage.
    This legislation ensures that a child of a Federal employee 
is covered in accordance with a court or administrative order 
even though the same order would ensure coverage for the child, 
if the child's parent were employed by an employer other than 
the Federal government.

                             II. Background

    The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 required each State 
to pass a law requiring an employer to enroll a child in an 
employee's group health plan when a court orders the employee 
to provide health insurance coverage for the child but the 
employee fails to provide the coverage. The FEHBP law provides 
that the Federal employee ``may enroll'' in an FEHBP plan 
``either as an individual or for self and family'' coverage. 
The law does not allow an employing agency to elect coverage on 
the employee's behalf. Further, the FEHBP law generally 
preempts State law with regard to coverage and benefits. 
Therefore, a Federal agency currently is unable to ensure that 
a child is covered in accordance with a court or administrative 
order even though the same order would ensure coverage for the 
child, if the child's parent were employed by an employer other 
than the Federal government.
    S. 1688 provides Federal agencies the authority to enroll 
an employee in family coverage, if such action is necessary to 
enforce compliance with a court order requiring the employee to 
provide health insurance coverage for a child.

                        III. Legislative History

    S. 1688 was introduced by Senators Carl Levin and Daniel 
Akaka on October 5, 1999 and referred to the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. On November 17, 1999, the bill was 
referred to the Subcommittee on International Security, 
Proliferation, and Federal Services. By unanimous consent, the 
full Committee took up consideration of S. 1688 at its 
September 27, 2000 business meeting. No hearings were held on 
the bill.
    On September 27, 2000, the Committee considered S. 1688. No 
amendments were offered and S. 1688 was ordered to be reported 
favorably by voice vote. Committee members present were 
Senators Roth, Stevens, Collins, Voinovich, Domenici, Cochran, 
Levin, Akaka, Durbin, Torricelli, Cleland, Edwards, and 
Thompson.
    A House companion bill, H.R. 2842, introduced by 
Representative Elijah Cummings, on March 13, 1999, was passed 
by the House of Representatives under suspension of the rules 
on September 19, 2000. It was referred to the Committee on 
September 20, 2000.

                    IV. Section-by-Section Analysis


                         Section 1. Short Title

    Section one provides the bill's short title, the ``Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 1999.''

        Section 2. Enrollment of Certain Employees and Families

    Section two amends 5 U.S.C. 8905 by adding a new subsection 
(f) to allow an employee who is not enrolled in an FEHBP plan 
to enroll in a plan for self and family coverage if the 
employee is required by a court order or an administrative 
order to provide health insurance coverage for a child who 
meets the definition of ``member of family'' under 5 U.S.C. 
8901(5). Moreover, if such an employee fails to enroll and 
cannot show that the child is covered by other health 
insurance, this amendment would require the employing agency to 
enroll the employee for self and family under the low-option 
Service Benefit Plan (currently Blue Cross/Blue Shield).
    The new subsection (f) also prescribes similar treatment 
for a similarly situated employee who is enrolled as an 
individual in an FEHBP plan. The amendment would ensure that, 
under the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph, 
the employee's enrollment would be changed to a self and family 
enrollment that would cover the child. An employee who did not 
change his or her enrollment voluntarily would be enrolled for 
self and family in the same plan in which the employee was 
already covered as an individual, unless that plan does not 
provide full benefits and services where the child resides. In 
the latter event, the employee would be enrolled for self and 
family under the low-option Service Benefit Plan.
    Lastly, the new subsection (f) would bar the employee from 
discontinuing the self and family enrollment as long as the 
order remains in effect and the child continues to meet the 
definition in section 8901(5) or unless the employee can show 
that the child has other health insurance.

 Section 3. Federal Employees' Retirement System Annuity Supplemental 
                              Computation

    This section amends 8421a(b) of title 5 with respect to 
FERS annuitants who retire before age 62 and who receive a 
special annuity supplement. The supplement must be reduced by 
$1 for every $2 of earnings that exceed a minimum level 
established by the Social Security Administration.
    The section delays the adjustment of the annuity supplement 
until July 1 to allow annuitants and OPM time to gather and 
process the necessary information. This section does not 
deprive any annuitant of a benefit. It simply ensures that the 
correct level of benefits is being paid.

                     V. Regulatory Impact Statement

    S. 1688 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. With a 
greater number of children enrolled in the Federal Employee 
Health Benefits Program, states would realize decreased 
expenditures in Medicaid and the State Children's Health 
Insurance Program.

             VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, October 4, 2000.
Hon. Fred Thompson,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
        DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1688, the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 1999.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Charles L. 
Betley.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

S. 1688--Federal Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 
        1999

    Summary: Under current law, the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits program (FEHB) has no authority to enforce compliance 
with a child support order to provide health insurance for an 
employee's children. S. 1688 would authorize the mandatory 
enrollment into family plan coverage and the deduction of 
premium contributions from the salaries of such employees who 
otherwise would not participate in FEHB or employees who elect 
self-only coverage, unless the employee provides documentation 
that insurance is provided from another source or the support 
order has ended.
    Because the federal government contributes larger amounts 
to the premiums for employees with family coverage, the bill 
would increase discretionary costs of benefits for federal 
employees by about $3 million in 2001 and $56 million over the 
2001-2005 period.
    Government contributions to FEHB for federal retirees are 
considered mandatory spending. Because some employees would 
retire while still subject to support orders, S. 1688 would 
increase the FEHB costs of annuitants and therefore would be 
subject to pay-as-you-go procedures. However, the mandatory 
costs in FEHB would be less than $500,000 in 2001, and would 
sum to about $4 million over the 2001-2005 period. Direct 
spending would increase for the health benefits of postal 
employees and annuitants subject to the bill's provisions, but 
these costs are classified as off-budget and would not be 
subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.
    The bill would also reduce mandatory federal and state 
outlays for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program (SCHIP) because some children with parents who are not 
complying with medical support orders would end up on those 
programs' rolls, with mandatory federal savings of about $16 
million over the 2001-2005 period. Finally, the bill would 
modify the earnings test that applies to supplemental benefits 
paid by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), but 
this provision would not have significant budgetary effects 
over the 2001-2005 period.
    The bill includes no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
With a greater number of children enrolled in the FEHB 
programs, states would realize decreased expenditures in 
Medicaid and SCHIP totaling about $12 million over the 2001-
2005 period.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 1688 is shown in the following table. 
The bill would add to discretionary spending by all federal 
agencies for employee health benefits and would affect 
mandatory spending in budget functions 550 (health) and 600 
(income security).


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of
                                                                                      dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Incremental cost of family coverage under FEHB for more federal            3        7       12       16       18
 employees.........................................................

                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING


Postal Service contributions to FEHB...............................        2        4        0        0        0
FEHB payments for retirees.........................................        *        *        1        1        2
Medicaid and SCHIP.................................................       -1       -2       -3       -5       -5
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
    Total changes \1\..............................................        *        2       -2       -4       -3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In addition to the FEHB, Medicaid, and SCHIP effects, the bill would affect direct spending under the
  Federal Employees' Retirement System, but CBO estimates that those effects would be less than $500,000 a year
  over the 2001-2005 period.
 * = less than $500,000.
Note: Components may not add to totals because of rounding.

    Basis of estimate: CBO's estimate of the federal costs of 
S. 1688 is based on assumptions about the number of employees 
who would be required to obtain family coverage who do not 
already do so, and the federal share of the change in spending 
by plans participating in FEHB for newly covered employees and 
children. In addition, CBO estimated savings for Medicaid and 
SCHIP based on assumptions about the number of children who 
would be covered by those programs under current law, but who 
would be covered by FEHB under the bill. Finally, the estimate 
of savings from the FERS annuity supplement policy change is 
based on the number of FERS retirees subject to the earnings 
test and the increased recoveries that can be expected from 
applying the tests over a longer period.
            Spending subject to appropriation
    S. 1688 would increase the number of federal employees who 
obtain FEHB family coverage because they are required to do so 
by a child support order by an estimated 11,500 workers. Data 
from the Census Bureau (Current Population Survey, April 1996 
supplement) indicates that about 1 percent of the population, 
ages 18 through 64, fails to comply with a medical support 
order. Assuming that the rate of noncompliance among federal 
employees is similar to the national rate, after adjusting for 
the different age distribution of federal workers, CBO 
estimates that about 23,000 federal employees (not including 
postal workers) are not in compliance with a medical support 
order. Because administrative barriers in the child support 
enforcement system limit how many support orders are enforced, 
CBO expects that about half of those federal employees would be 
brought into compliance with medical support orders.
    CBO also expects that it would take about four years to 
identify and bring into compliance those 11,500 employees. 
Because federal employment is likely to remain close to current 
levels over the next five years, we assume that newly applied 
medical support orders would be approximately balanced by 
orders that end or by other employee attrition.
    Based on information from the Office of Management and 
Budget (OPM), CBO estimates that the costs incurred by FEHB 
plans for single-parent families average two-thirds of the cost 
for two-parent families. For the purposes of this estimate, we 
assume that 90 percent of the employees brought into compliance 
with medical support orders under S. 1688 have self-only 
coverage under current law. For those employees, the estimated 
increase in federal spending would be about $900 per family 
policy in 2001, which is the difference between the federal 
share of the annual premium for self-only coverage and two-
thirds of the federal share of the premium for family coverage, 
on average. Once expected compliance is fully phased-in (in 
2004), the incremental cost of FEHB coverage for conversion 
from self-only to family coverage would cost about $9 million a 
year in 2001 dollars.
    CBO assumes that the remaining 10 percent of the affected 
employees would be brought into compliance with medical support 
orders would have no FEHB coverage under current law. For those 
employees, the estimated effect on federal spending in 2001 
would be about $3,500 per family policy, which is two-thirds of 
the federal share of the average annual premium for family 
coverage. The annualized cost of providing family coverage for 
those employees with no FEHB coverage under current law would 
be about $4 million a year in 2001 dollars.
    Assuming that agency appropriations would be increased to 
maintain current levels of staffing and to reflect anticipated 
inflation in the cost of FEHB coverage, CBO estimates that 
implementing S. 1688 would increase discretionary spending for 
FEHB by $3 million in 2001 and by $56 million over the 2001-
2005 period.
            Direct spending
    Health Care Costs. Enacting S. 1688 would increase costs to 
the U.S. Postal Service by about $2 million in fiscal year 2001 
and $4 million in 2002 because an estimated 6,000 postal 
employees would be subject to medical support orders. By 2003, 
CBO anticipates that the Postal Service would increase postal 
rates and offset such costs. Postal Service spending and 
collections are classified as off-budget and thus the charges 
incurred by S. 1688 would not be subject to pay-as-you-go 
procedures.
    A federal employee would be subject to the mandatory family 
enrollment until a support order expires. Some of the 11,500 
employees affected by the bill would be required to cover their 
children after they retire from active federal employment, 
shifting the classification of costs from discretionary to 
mandatory spending. However, there are fewer support orders for 
older employees, and most children covered under such orders 
are likely to be close to reaching adulthood. Based on the rate 
of retirement of federal employees and assumptions about the 
rate of expiration of support orders, CBO estimates that the 
increase in direct spending by FEHB for payments to cover 
affected retirees would be negligible in 2001, but would total 
$4 million over the 2001-2005 period.
    The bill would reduce spending by Medicaid and SCHIP. CBO 
estimates that 15 percent of the 17,500 employees and postal 
workers would have children who would enroll in those programs 
under current law if medical support orders are not enforced. 
(That is slightly lower than the estimated rate for the general 
population, reflecting an assumption that the children of 
federal workers are somewhat less likely to have low-enough 
incomes to qualify for such programs.) CBO estimates the 
Medicaid savings based on the average costs per child, 
multiplied by an average of 1.5 children covered under each 
support order. After accounting for anticipated inflation, the 
estimated federal share of Medicaid savings would be $1 million 
in 2001 and $16 million over the 2001-2005 period.
    Some SCHIP savings also would occur, but CBO estimates that 
such savings would be less than $500,000 annually.
    Modify Earnings Test for FERS Annuity Supplement. The 
Federal Employees' Retirement System pays supplemental benefits 
to certain nondisabled retirees until they reach age 62 and 
become eligible for Social Security. These supplemental 
benefits are subject to an earnings test. Individuals with 
earnings that exceed a certain level in a calendar year (about 
$10,000 in 2000) have their supplemental benefits reduced 
during the 12-month period starting on January 1 of the 
following year. S. 1688 would make reductions from the earnings 
test effective for the 12-month period starting on July 1 of 
the following year.
    Under the current earnings test, OPM pays unreduced 
supplemental benefits for the first two or three months of each 
year until it receives the wage information needed to 
administer the earnings test. This inevitably leads to 
overpayments, which OPM does not try to recover. The bill's 
provisions would increase spending on supplemental benefits in 
2001 (a one-time cost of moving the effective date to July 1) 
before yielding savings in later years by eliminating 
overpayments.
    According to OPM, about 700 retirees currently have their 
supplemental benefits reduced because of the earnings test. 
(this figure will raise in the future as the number of FERS 
retirees grows.) CBO estimates that the earnings test reduces 
their supplemental benefits by 50 percent--a reduction of about 
$100 per month for current retirees. CBO estimates that S. 1688 
would increase spending on supplemental benefits by about 
$240,000 in 2001 and reduce spending in later years. Annual 
savings would grow slowly and would reach $1 million in 2010.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
changes in outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures 
are shown in the following table. For the purposes of enforcing 
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the budget year 
and the succeeding four years are counted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2001     2002     2003     2004     2005     2006     2007     2008     2009     2010
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays............................................       -1       -2       -3       -4       -3       -4       -4       -4       -4       -4
Changes in receipts...........................................                                        Not Applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1688 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. With a greater number of children enrolled in 
the FEHB program, states would realize decreased expenditures 
in Medicaid and SCHIP totaling about $12 million over the 2001-
2005 period.
    Previous CBO cost estimate: On May 16, 2000, CBO 
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 2842, a similar bill 
ordered reported by the House Committee on Government Reform on 
March 30, 2000. The two bills are essentially identical, as are 
our cost estimates.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: FEHB--Charles L. 
Betley, Child Support--Sheila Dacey, Other Costs--Eric Rollins, 
impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Leo Lex, impact 
on the private sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      VII. Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
S. 1688, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                           UNITED STATES CODE


TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 84--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 8421A. REDUCTIONS OF ACCOUNT OF EARNINGS FROM WORK PERFORMED WHILE 
                    ENTITLED TO AN ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT

    (a) The amount of the annuity supplement to which an 
individual is entitled under section 8421 for any month 
(determined without regard to subsection (c) of such section) 
shall be reduced by the amount of any excess earnings of such 
individual which are required to be charged to such supplement 
for such month, as determined under subsection (b).
    (b) The amount of an individual's excess earnings shall be 
charged to months as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (4), the 
        reduction required by subsection (a) shall be effective 
        during the 12 month period beginning on the first day 
        of the seventh month after the end of the calendar year 
        in which the excess earnings were earned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 89--HEALTH INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 8905. ELECTION OF COVERAGE

    (a) * * *
    (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f)(1)(A) An unenrolled employee who is required by a court 
or administrative order to provide health insurance coverage 
for a child who meets the requirements of section 8901(5) may 
enroll for self and family coverage in a health benefits plan 
under this chapter.
    (B) The employing agency of an employee described under 
subparagraph (A) shall enroll the employee in a self and family 
enrollment in the option which provides the lower level of 
coverage under the service benefit plan if the employee--
          (i) fails to enroll for self and family coverage in a 
        health benefits plan that provides full benefits and 
        services in the location in which the child resides; 
        and
          (ii) does not provide documentation demonstrating 
        that the required coverage has been provided through 
        other health insurance.
    (2)(A) An employee who is enrolled as an individual in a 
health benefits plan under this chapter and who is required by 
a court or administrative order to provide health insurance 
coverage for a child who meets the requirements of section 
8901(5) may change to a self and family enrollment in--
          (i) the health benefits plan in which the employee is 
        enrolled; or
          (ii) another health benefits plan under this chapter.
    (B) The employing agency of an employee described under 
subparagraph (A) shall change the enrollment of the employee to 
a self and family enrollment in the plan in which the employee 
is enrolled if--
          (i) such plan provides full benefits and services in 
        the location where the child resides; and
          (ii) the employee--
                  (I) fails to change to a self and family 
                enrollment; and
                  (II) does not provide documentation 
                demonstrating that the required coverage has 
                been provided through other health insurance.
    (C) The employing agency of an employee described under 
subparagraph (A) shall change the coverage of the employee to a 
self and family enrollment in the option which provides the 
lower level of coverage under the service benefit plan if--
          (i) the plan in which the employee is enrolled does 
        not provide full benefits and services in the location 
        in which the child resides; or
          (ii) the employee fails to change to a self and 
        family enrollment in a plan that provides full benefits 
        and services in the location where the child resides.
    (3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), an employee who is 
subject to a court or administrative order described under this 
section may not discontinue the self and family enrollment in a 
plan that provides full benefits and services in the location 
in which the child resides for the period that the court or 
administrative order remains in effect if the child meets the 
requirements of section 8901(5) during such period.
    (B) Enrollment described under subparagraph (A) may be 
discontinued if the employee provides documentation 
demonstrating that the required coverage has been provided 
through other health insurance.
    [(f)] (g) An employee, annuitant, former spouse, or person 
having continued coverage under section 8905a of this title 
enrolled in a health benefits plan under this chapter may 
change his coverage or that of himself and members of his 
family by an application filed within 60 days after a change in 
family status or at other times and under conditions prescribed 
by regulations of the office.
    [(g)] (h)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Office, 
the Office shall, before the start of any contract term in 
which--
          (A) * * *
          (B) * * *
          (C) * * *
provide a period of not less than 3 weeks during which any 
employee, annuitant, former spouse, or person having continued 
coverage under section 8905a of this title enrolled in a health 
benefits plan described by such section shall be permitted to 
transfer that individual's enrollment to another such plan, or 
to cancel such enrollment, at such other times and subject to 
such conditions as the Office may prescribe in regulations.
    (2) * * *
    (3) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                
