[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 68 (Friday, April 9, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18051-18055]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-8162]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 199

[Docket ID: DoD-2007-HA-0078; RIN 0720-AB17]


TRICARE; Relationship Between the TRICARE Program and Employer-
Sponsored Group Health Coverage

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DoD.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule implements section 1097c of Title 10, United 
States Code, as added by section 707 of the John Warner National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Public Law 109-364. 
This law prohibits employers from offering incentives to TRICARE-
eligible employees to not enroll or to terminate enrollment in an 
employer-offered Group Health Plan (GHP) that is or would be primary to 
TRICARE. Benefits offered through cafeteria plans that comport with 
section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code will be permissible as long as 
the plan treats all similarly situated employees eligible for benefits 
the same and does not illegally take TRICARE eligibility into account. 
TRICARE supplemental insurance plans, because they are limited to 
TRICARE beneficiaries exclusively, are generally impermissible. 
Properly documented non-employer contributed TRICARE supplemental 
plans, however, are allowed.

DATES: Effective June 18, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kathleen Larkin, TRICARE Policy 
and Operations, TRICARE Management Activity, 5111 Leesburg Pike, Suite 
810, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 681-0039.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 707 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 2007 (Pub. L. 109-364) added section 1097c to Title 10, 
United States Code. Section 1097c prohibits employers from offering 
financial or other incentives to certain TRICARE-eligible employees 
(essentially retirees and their family members) to not enroll in an 
employer-offered GHP in the same manner as employers are currently 
prohibited from offering incentives to Medicare-eligible employees 
under section 1862(b)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
1395y(b)(3)(C)). Many employers, including state and local governments, 
have begun to offer their employees who are TRICARE-eligible a TRICARE 
supplement as an incentive not to enroll in the employer's primary GHP. 
These actions shift thousands of dollars of annual health costs per 
employee to the Defense Department, draining resources from higher 
national security priorities. TRICARE is, as is Medicare, a secondary 
payer to employer-provided health insurance. In all instances where a 
TRICARE beneficiary is employed by a public or private entity and 
elects to participate in a GHP, reimbursements for TRICARE claims will 
be paid as a secondary payer to the TRICARE beneficiary's employer-
sponsored GHP. TRICARE is not responsible for paying first as it 
relates to reimbursements for a TRICARE beneficiary's health care and 
the coordination of benefits with employer-sponsored GHPs.
    An identified employer-sponsored health plan will be the primary 
payer and TRICARE will be the secondary payer. TRICARE will generally 
pay no more than the amount it would have paid if there were no 
employer GHP. As applicable to both the Medicare and TRICARE secondary 
payer programs, the term ``group health plan'' means a plan (including 
a self-insured plan) of, or contributed to by, an employer (including a 
self-employed person) or employee organization to provide health care 
(directly or otherwise) to the employees, former employees, the 
employer, others associated or formerly associated with the employer in 
a business relationship, or their families. It should be noted that by 
including any plan of an employer to provide health care to employees, 
this definition is very broad.
    The purpose of the prohibition on incentives not to enroll in 
employer-sponsored GHPs is to prevent employers from shifting their 
responsibility for their employees onto the Federal taxpayers. Certain 
common employer benefit programs do not constitute improper incentives 
under the law. For example, the general rule is that an employer-funded 
benefit offered through an employer's cafeteria plan that comports with 
section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code would not be considered 
improper incentive, as long as it is not a TRICARE exclusive benefit. A 
cafeteria plan, as defined by the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. 
125(d), is a written plan under which all participants are employees 
and the participants may choose among two or more benefits consisting 
of cash and qualified benefits. Employers who adhere to the 
requirements of section 125 and offer all similarly situated employees 
without regard to TRICARE eligibility a choice between health insurance 
and cash payment equivalents are not considered in violation of 42 
U.S.C. 1395y(b)(3)(C). Therefore, if a TRICARE beneficiary elects the 
cash-payment option as a benefit offered via the employer's cafeteria 
plan, one which meets section 125 requirements, then the employer would 
not be in violation of these provisions. In general, 10 U.S.C. 1097c 
prohibits employer-endorsed TRICARE supplemental plans as an option for 
health coverage under an employer-sponsored GHP to TRICARE-eligible 
beneficiaries. This type of benefit cannot be offered as part of a 
cafeteria plan because the employer, by endorsing this type of plan, 
effectively offers an improper incentive targeted only at TRICARE 
beneficiaries for not enrolling in the employer's main health plan 
option or options.
    Section 1097c does not impact TRICARE supplemental plans that are 
not offered by an employer but are sold by an insurer and/or 
beneficiary association working in conjunction with an insurer. Such 
non-employer-sponsored TRICARE supplemental plans will continue to be 
expressly

[[Page 18052]]

excluded as double coverage under 32 CFR 199.2(b) and 199.8(b)(4)(ii), 
so that TRICARE is the primary payer and the TRICARE supplemental plan 
is the secondary payer.

II. Public Comments

    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on March 
24, 2008, for a 60-day comment period. We received 21 comments. We 
thank those who provided comments. Specific matters raised by those who 
submitted comments are summarized below.
    Comment: One commenter approved of the rule but suggested the text 
be clarified to refer more precisely to a ``cafeteria plan'' as a 
vehicle for offering benefits to employees, rather than as a benefit 
itself. Further, this commenter suggested our references to ``benefits 
offered to all employees'' overlook that benefits are oftentimes not 
offered to all employees due to their being in different divisions or 
geographic locations.
    Response: We agree with the commenter. We have clarified our 
references to ``cafeteria plan.'' Additionally, references to ``all 
employees'' have been changed to ``all similarly situated employees.''
    Comment: Several commenters urged that we revise the rule to permit 
employers to offer TRICARE supplemental plans that are not paid for in 
whole or in part by the employer and are not endorsed by the employer. 
Plans such as this, sometimes referred to as ``voluntary plans,'' might 
allow employees to purchase TRICARE supplements with pre-tax dollars.
    Response: We agree that this is a reasonable proposal, allowing the 
employer to have some involvement in offering a TRICARE-exclusive plan. 
Thus, we have revised the rule to make clear that the prohibition on 
employer incentives does not include TRICARE supplemental plans when it 
is properly documented that the employer does not provide any payment 
for the benefit nor receive any direct or indirect consideration or 
compensation for offering the benefit; the employer's only involvement 
is providing the administrative support for the benefits under the 
cafeteria plan.
    Comment: Several commenters reported they had been inappropriately 
excluded from benefits due to their employers' misunderstanding of the 
law. For example, several commented that their employers stopped 
allowing TRICARE eligibles from taking advantage of a permissible cash 
option under a proper cafeteria plan. Another commenter who similarly 
lost a medical-insurance stipend applauded the rule as she believes its 
implementation will correct her employer's misunderstanding since it 
clearly states cash options are permissible when offered to all 
similarly situated employees under a proper cafeteria plan.
    Response: We hope this final rule will eliminate these 
misunderstandings. This regulation does not prohibit TRICARE-eligible 
employees from electing a cash option offered to all similarly situated 
employees under a proper cafeteria plan.
    Comment: One commenter, an active duty service member, reported 
that his daughter's employer ceased funding her 403(b) benefit and 
required her to acquire the employer health insurance plan in order to 
comply with this law.
    Response: Again, nothing of the sort is required by the law or this 
regulation. Further, both the statute and this regulation expressly 
define a TRICARE-eligible employee as a person who is eligible for 
TRICARE coverage under 10 U.S.C. 1086. This essentially applies to 
retirees and their family members and does not include dependents of 
active duty personnel.
    Comment: One commenter offered a different numbering scheme for the 
insertion of this rule into section 1097(c) of Title 10, U.S. Code.
    Response. Section 1097c is a new, complete section and will not be 
added as subsection 1097(c) under section 1097.
    Comment: One commenter stated military retirees should have the 
same access to civilian employer cafeteria plan offerings as their 
fellow employees.
    Response: We agree that military retirees should have the same 
access to employer benefit plans as their civilian counterparts. The 
rule makes clear that employer-sponsored benefits offered to all 
similarly situated employees do not violate 10 U.S.C. 1097c or this 
regulation.
    Comment: Several commenters believe section 707 exceeds what is 
necessary to ensure improper incentives are not provided by employers; 
they feel a qualifying cafeteria plan which offers a TRICARE supplement 
is not an improper incentive.
    Response: The statute is designed to stop employers from targeting 
TRICARE beneficiaries with incentives designed to shift employers' 
financial responsibility for health coverage to federal taxpayers. The 
Conference Report accompanying the enactment of section 1097c made 
clear that supplemental insurance plans offered by employers through 
cafeteria plans are permissible under 1097c only if they are ``non-
TRICARE-exclusive employer-provider health care incentives.'' TRICARE-
exclusive plans, even if offered under cafeteria plans, are not allowed 
(except for plans offered that comport with the new provision regarding 
non-contributory plans).
    Comment: One commenter questioned if the employer could provide a 
Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) in lieu of a traditional 
employer-sponsored health plan. An additional commenter questioned how 
this rule intersects with the McNamara-O'Hara Service Contract Act 
(SCA).
    Response: An HRA is an employer sponsored plan. HRAs generally are 
classified as group health plans, and only employers can make 
contributions to HRAs. If the incentive, such as an HRA, is available 
to and can be used by all similarly situated employees (not limited to 
TRICARE beneficiaries), it does not violate this provision. Further, 
cash payments or other bona fide fringe benefits may properly be 
offered under the SCA and otherwise in lieu of health care coverage as 
long as the employer does not consider TRICARE eligibility when 
formulating the cash payment or fringe benefits options.
    Comment: Several commenters criticized the proposed rule on the 
grounds that it results in a lessening of total benefits for military 
retirees who could otherwise receive TRICARE Standard coverage from DoD 
and a TRICARE supplemental plan from the employer, both without paying 
premiums and together resulting in comprehensive health care with no 
out-of-pocket costs.
    Response: We acknowledge that prior to the enactment of section 
1097c, an employer could offer TRICARE-eligible employees TRICARE 
supplemental plans that would save money for both the employer and the 
employee. But this was accomplished by shifting costs to the employee's 
former employer, the United States Government and the federal 
taxpayers. Health care financing in the United States is, of course, a 
complicated enterprise but in general is organized as a benefit of 
employment for which most employers accept primary responsibility. 
Usually employees also contribute to this coverage in the form of 
paying part of the premiums. In cases in which there is a former 
employer from whom benefits are also available, it is not typically 
assumed that these replace the responsibility of the current employer. 
With respect to military retirees, they have a very good health care 
benefit under TRICARE provided by their former employer. Under the law 
there are some out-of-pocket costs in the form of deductibles and 
copayments; there is

[[Page 18053]]

no entitlement to free, comprehensive care. Taking all of these factors 
together, the question becomes: What are the rules for allocating 
financial responsibilities among the three players--the current 
employer, the former employer (the U.S. Government), and the employee/
retiree? This statute provides that the employer and the U.S. 
Government let the employee/retiree choose between his or her 
respective health care options, placing primary responsibility with 
either the employer or the Government. Neither the employer nor the 
Government should seek to shift the responsibility to the other. In 
other words, both the employer and Government should offer the same 
benefits they otherwise would offer and let the employee decide. That 
is what both the statute and regulation require. Although it is true 
this does not necessarily maximize the financial gain of the military 
retiree involved, it is a fair allocation of financial responsibility, 
consistent with prevailing health care financing law, policy, and 
practice in the United States.

III. Provisions of Final Rule

    The final rule would add to Sec.  199.8 of the TRICARE Regulation a 
new paragraph (d)(6) concerning the statutory prohibition against 
financial and other incentives not to enroll in a group health plan. 
The final rule is similar to the proposed rule except for the 
refinement and revisions noted above. DoD considered alternatives to 
the final rule within the bounds of the statute and Congressional 
intent. The statute is specific in requiring DoD to apply the Medicare 
rules concerning employer incentives to rely on Medicare, but does give 
DoD authority to adopt exceptions. The legislative history establishes 
Congressional intent clearly to prohibit employer-sponsored TRICARE 
supplemental plans. DoD considered the alternative of applying the 
Medicare rules without exception, but decided to adopt an exception, 
discussed above, when the employer's only involvement is providing the 
administrative support for the benefits under a cafeteria plan for a 
non-contributory TRICARE supplemental plan. Subparagraph (i) provides 
the general rule that an employer or other entity is prohibited from 
offering TRICARE beneficiaries financial or other benefits as 
incentives not to enroll in, or to terminate enrollment in a group 
health plan that is or would be primary to TRICARE. This prohibition 
applies in the same manner as the Medicare Secondary Payer law applies 
to incentives for a Medicare-eligible employee not to enroll in a group 
health plan that is or would be primary to Medicare.
    Subparagraph (ii) states that this prohibition precludes offering 
to TRICARE beneficiaries an alternative to the employer primary plan 
unless the beneficiary has primary coverage other than TRICARE; or the 
benefit is offered under a proper cafeteria plan and is offered to all 
similarly situated employees, including non-TRICARE-eligible employees; 
or the benefit is offered under a cafeteria plan and, although offered 
only to TRICARE-eligible employees, the employer does not provide any 
payment for the benefit nor receive any direct or indirect 
consideration or compensation for offering the benefit. The employer's 
only involvement is providing the administrative support for the 
benefits under the cafeteria plan, and the participation of the 
employee in the plan is completely voluntary.
    Subparagraph (iii) requires documentation certifying the 
requirements for a non-contributory TRICARE supplemental plan is met in 
cases in which an employer provides that option, and that the 
certification will be provided upon request to the Department of 
Defense. In cases in which a question arises about a TRICARE 
supplemental plan offered by an employer, this documentation will 
provide a simple means to resolve that it was offered within the 
authorized exception to the general rule against TRICARE-exclusive 
benefits.
    Subparagraph (iv) provides that enforcement of this prohibition is 
afforded through civil monetary penalties not to exceed $5,000 for each 
violation, investigative authorities of the Department of Defense 
Inspector General, recourse under the Debt Collection Improvement Act, 
and any other authority provided by law.
    Subparagraph (v) provides definitions. The term ``employer'' 
includes any State or unit of local government and any employer that 
employs at least 20 employees. The term ``group health plan'' is 
defined in reference to the Internal Revenue Code. The term ``TRICARE-
eligible employee'' means a covered beneficiary under 10 U.S.C. 1086, 
essentially military retirees and their eligible family members. The 
term ``similarly situated'' means sharing common attributes, such as 
part-time employees, or other bona fide employment-based 
classifications consistent with the employer's usual business practice, 
but not including TRICARE eligibility as a permissible classification.
    Subparagraph (vi) provides that the Departments of Defense and 
Health and Human Services are authorized to enter into agreements to 
further carry out the new regulation.

IV. Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review''

    Executive Order 12866 requires that a comprehensive regulatory 
impact analysis be performed on any significant regulatory action, 
defined as one that would result in an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the national economy or which would have other substantial 
impacts. In the proposed rule, we stated that this rule was an 
economically significant rule. This was based on a Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) estimate during Congressional consideration of the 
underlying legislation that it would have an annual economic impact of 
$119 million in 2008 and $700 million over the 2008-2011 period. This 
was based on CBO's estimate that 50,000 retirees and their dependents 
would stop using TRICARE in favor of an employer-sponsored plan. Based 
on an assessment of data in the Defense Eligibility Enrollment 
Reporting System (DEERS) of retirees and their dependents under age 65 
identified as having other health insurance, as well as recent 
beneficiary survey data, we now believe the CBO estimate was too high, 
and that a better estimate is that the statutory change implemented by 
this final rule will yield annual budget savings of $64 million for 
Fiscal Year 2010. Nonetheless, DoD will continue to treat this as an 
economically significant rule to maintain consistency with the proposed 
rule and because medical system cost growth in the future may raise the 
economic impact over the $100 million per year threshold.
    The revised estimate is based on a DoD beneficiary survey conducted 
in October 2007 (three months before the effective date of section 
707). Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) data 
indicate that the average number of non-active duty family members 
(NADFMs) eligible for TRICARE, excluding Medicare eligibles, was 
2,881,929 in FY09. Among these NADFMs, the October 2007 DoD survey 
indicated that 51 percent were offered OHI. Therefore, we estimate that 
1,469,784 NADFM eligibles are currently offered OHI. Of those NADFMs 
offered OHI, the survey indicated that 53 percent took the OHI and 47 
percent used TRICARE, prior the effect of Sec. 707. Therefore, we 
estimate that 690,798 current NADFM eligibles were offered OHI but 
instead

[[Page 18054]]

would have used TRICARE, prior to the effect of Sec. 707.
    The survey also asked this group (who were offered OHI but used 
TRICARE) whether their employer (or spouse's employer) paid them a 
bonus for declining the employer's health plan, and the survey 
indicated that 4 percent of this group were, in fact, paid to decline 
OHI. Therefore, we estimate that 27,632 TRICARE eligibles were paid by 
an employer to decline the employer's coverage, prior to the effective 
date of section 707. Of the 690,798 NADFMs who declined OHI prior to 
sec. 707, 663,166 did so without a financial incentive from their 
employer (because they perceived TRICARE as less expensive, a better 
benefit, and/or for other reasons). These NADFMs who declined their 
employer plan but were not paid to do so represent 46 percent of the 
1,442,152 NADFMs who were offered OHI without a financial incentive to 
decline it (prior to Sec. 707). The other 54 percent of NADFMs who were 
offered OHI, without a financial incentive to decline it, took the OHI. 
Combining these two points, we estimate that with the section 707 
prohibition of employer incentives, 54 percent of the 27,632 NADFMs, or 
14,921 NADFMs, would shift to OHI rather than using TRICARE. The other 
46 percent, or 12,711 NADFMs, would continue as TRICARE users even 
without the employer financial incentive, just as 46 percent of the 
NADFMs who do not have an employer financial incentive opt for TRICARE 
rather than OHI.
    An updated analysis of DoD's cost and population data for FY09 
indicates that the average MHS cost per NADFM user under age 65 was 
$3,975 (in FY09 dollars). After adjusting for inflation to FY10, we 
estimate that the current year (FY10) cost per NADFM user is $4,293. 
Multiplying this cost per user by the 14,921 NADFMs who would shift to 
OHI rather than using TRICARE, due to section 707, yields an annual 
estimated cost impact of $64.1 million in savings for Fiscal Year 2010.
    Based on a trend of seven percent inflation offset by a projected 
two percent annual decrease in non-active duty family members under age 
65, we estimate the following impact.

                         Estimated Annual Impact
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Savings  (in
                      Fiscal year                           millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010...................................................            $64.1
2011...................................................             67.3
2012...................................................             70.6
2013...................................................             74.2
2014...................................................             77.9
2015...................................................             81.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.

    Under the Congressional Review Act, a major rule may not take 
effect until at least 60 days after submission to Congress of a report 
regarding the rule. A major rule is one that would have an annual 
effect of the economy of $100 million or more or have certain other 
impacts. For the reasons stated above, DoD is treating this as a major 
rule under the Congressional Review Act.

``Regulatory Flexibility Act'' (5 U.S.C. 601)

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that each Federal 
agency prepare, and make available for public comment, a regulatory 
flexibility analysis when the agency issues a regulation which would 
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of 
small entities for purposes of the RFA.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3511)

    This rule will impose additional information collection 
requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(44 U.S.C. 3501-3511). (Ref: Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 251, 
December 31, 2008).

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism''

    We have examined the impact(s) of the final rule under Executive 
Order 13132 and it does not have policies that have federalism 
implications that would have substantial direct effects on the States, 
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government, therefore, consultation with State and local 
officials is not required.

Sec. 202, Public Law 104-4, ``Unfunded Mandates Reform Act''

    This rule does not contain unfunded mandates. It does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and 
tribal governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 199

    Claims, Health care, Health insurance, Military personnel.

0
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is amended as follows:

PART 199--CIVILIAN HEALTH AND MEDICAL PROGRAM OF THE UNIFORMED 
SERVICES (CHAMPUS) [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 199 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter 55.


0
2. Section 199.8 is amended by adding a new paragraph (d)(6) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  199.8  Double coverage.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (6) Prohibition against financial and other incentives not to 
enroll in a group health plan--(i) General rule. Under 10 U.S.C. 1097c, 
an employer or other entity is prohibited from offering TRICARE 
beneficiaries financial or other benefits as incentives not to enroll 
in, or to terminate enrollment in, a group health plan that is or would 
be primary to TRICARE. This prohibition applies in the same manner as 
section 1862(b)(3)(C) of the Social Security Act applies to incentives 
for a Medicare-eligible employee not to enroll in a group health plan 
that is or would be primary to Medicare.
    (ii) Application of general rule. The prohibition in paragraph 
(d)(6)(i) of this section precludes offering to TRICARE beneficiaries 
an alternative to the employer primary plan unless:
    (A) The beneficiary has primary coverage other than TRICARE; or
    (B) The benefit is offered under a cafeteria plan under section 125 
of the Internal Revenue Code and is offered to all similarly situated 
employees, including non-TRICARE eligible employees; or
    (C) The benefit is offered under a cafeteria plan under section 125 
of the Internal Revenue Code and, although offered only to TRICARE-
eligible employees, the employer does not provide any payment for the 
benefit nor receive any direct or indirect consideration or 
compensation for offering the benefit; the employer's only involvement 
is providing the administrative support for the benefits under the 
cafeteria plan, and the employee's participation in the plan is 
completely voluntary.
    (iii) Documentation. In the case of a benefit excluded by paragraph 
(d)(6)(ii)(C) of this section from the

[[Page 18055]]

prohibition in paragraph (d)(6)(i) of this section, the exclusion is 
dependent on the employer maintaining in the employer's files a 
certification signed by the employer that the conditions described in 
paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(C) of this section are met, and, upon request of 
the Department of Defense, providing a copy of that certification to 
the Department of Defense.
    (iv) Remedies and penalties. (A) Remedies for violation of this 
paragraph (d)(6) include but are not limited to remedies under the 
Federal Claims Collection Act, 31 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.
    (B) Penalties for violation of this paragraph (d)(6) include a 
civil monetary penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation. The 
provisions of section 1128A of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 
1320a-7a, (other than subsections (a) and (b)) apply to the civil 
monetary penalty in the same manner as the provisions apply to a 
penalty or proceeding under section 1128A.
    (v) Definitions. For the purposes of this paragraph (d)(6):
    (A) The term ``employer'' includes any State or unit of local 
government and any employer that employs at least 20 employees.
    (B) The term ``group health plan'' means a group health plan as 
that term is defined in section 5000(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 without regard to section 5000(d) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986.
    (C) The term ``similarly situated'' means sharing common 
attributes, such as part-time employees, or other bona fide employment-
based classifications consistent with the employer's usual business 
practice. (Internal Revenue Service regulations at 26 CFR 54.9802-1(d) 
may be used as a reference for this purpose). However, in no event 
shall eligibility for or entitlement to TRICARE (or ineligibility or 
non-entitlement to TRICARE) be considered a bona fide employment-based 
classification.
    (D) The term ``TRICARE-eligible employee'' means a covered 
beneficiary under section 1086 of title 10, United States Code, Chapter 
55, entitled to health care benefits under the TRICARE program.
    (vi) Procedures. The Departments of Defense and Health and Human 
Services are authorized to enter into agreements to further carry out 
this section.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 6, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-8162 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P