FECA benefits  are paid to federal employees who are unable to work because of injuries  sustained while performing their federal duties. Proposals to Change Benefits for Older Beneficiaries

Concerns that beneficiaries remain in the FECA program past retirement  age have led to several proposals to change the program. Because returning to work could mean giving up a FECA benefit for a  reduced pension amount, concerns have been raised by some that the  program may provide incentives for beneficiaries to continue on the  program beyond retirement age. In 1996, we reported on two alternative proposals to change FECA  benefits once beneficiaries reach the age at which retirement typically  occurs: (1) converting FECA benefits to retirement benefits, and (2)  changing FECA wage-loss benefits to a newly established FECA annuity. Labor’s proposal would still keep the changed  benefit within the FECA program. Questions and Issues to Consider if Crafting FECA Changes

We also discussed in our 1996 report a number of issues that merit  consideration in crafting legislation to change benefits for older  beneficiaries. Going forward, Congress may wish to consider the  following questions as it assesses and considers current reform  proposals: (1) How would benefits be computed? (2) Which beneficiaries  would be affected? (3) What criteria, such as age or retirement eligibility,  would initiate changed benefits? (4) How would other benefits, such as  FECA medical and survivor benefits, be treated and administered? (5)  How would benefits, particularly retirement benefits, be funded? The retirement conversion alternative raises complex issues, arising in  part from the fact that conversion could result in varying retirement  benefits, depending on conversion provisions, retirement systems, and  individual circumstances. A key issue is whether or not benefits would be  adjusted. The unadjusted option would allow for retirement benefits as  provided by current law. The adjusted option would typically ensure that  time on the FECA rolls was treated as if the beneficiary had continued to  work. This adjustment could (1) credit time on FECA for years of service  or (2) increase the salary base (for example, increasing salary from the  time of injury by either an index of wage increases or inflation, assigning  the current pay of the position, or providing for merit increases and  possible promotions missed due to the injury). Currently most federal employees are covered by FERS, but conversion  proposals might have to consider differences between FERS and CSRS  participants, and participants in any specialized retirement systems. Other groups that might be uniquely affected include injured workers who  are not eligible for federal retirement benefits, individuals eligible for  retirement conversion benefits, but not vested; and individuals who are  partially disabled FECA recipients but active federal employees. With  regard to vesting, those who have insufficient years of service to be  vested might be given credit for time on the FECA rolls until vested. There  is also the question of whether changes will focus on current or future  beneficiaries. Exempting current beneficiaries delays receipt of full  savings from FECA cost reductions to the future. One option might be a  transition period for current beneficiaries. For example, current  beneficiaries could be given notice that their benefits would be changed  after a certain number of years. Past proposals have used either age or retirement eligibility as the  primary criterion for changing benefits. If retirement eligibility is used,  consideration must be given to establishing eligibility for those who might  otherwise not become retirement eligible. This would be true for either the  retirement conversion or the annuity option. At least for purposes of  initiating the changed benefit, time on the FECA rolls might be treated as  if it counted for service time toward retirement eligibility. Deciding on the  criteria that would initiate change in benefits might require developing  benchmarks. In addition to changing FECA compensation benefits, consideration  should be given to whether to change other FECA benefits, such as  medical benefits or survivor benefits. For example, the 1981 Reagan  administration proposal would have ended survivor benefits under FECA  for those beneficiaries whose benefits were converted to the retirement  system. For the retirement conversion alternative, another issue is the funding of  any retirement benefit shortfall. Currently, agencies and individuals do not  make retirement contributions if an individual receives FECA benefits;  thus, if retirement benefits exceed those for which contributions have  been made, retirement funding shortfalls would occur. Retirement fund  shortfalls can be funded through payments made by agencies at the time  of conversion or prior to conversion. Proposals for the FECA annuity  alternative typically keep funding under the current FECA chargeback  system. Although FECA’s basic structure has not been  significantly amended for many years, there continues to be interest in  reforming the program. Proposals to change benefits for older  beneficiaries raise a number of important issues, with implications for  both beneficiaries and federal agencies. Related GAO Products

Federal Workers’ Compensation: Issues Associated with Changing  Benefits for Older Beneficiaries. Federal Employees’ Compensation Act: Issues Associated With  Changing Benefits for Older Beneficiaries.
Why GAO Did This Study

This testimony discusses issues related to possible changes to the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) program, a topic that we have reported on in the past. At the end of chargeback year 2010, the FECA program, administered by the Department of Labor (Labor) had paid more than $1.88 billion in wage-loss compensation, impairment, and death benefits, and another $898.1 million for medical and rehabilitation services and supplies. Currently, FECA benefits are paid to federal employees who are unable to work because of injuries sustained while performing their federal duties, including those who are at or older than retirement age. Concerns have been raised that federal employees on FECA receive benefits that could be more generous than under the traditional federal retirement system and that the program may have unintended incentives for beneficiaries to remain on the FECA program beyond the traditional retirement age. Over the past 30 years, there have been various proposals to change the FECA program to address this concern. Recent policy proposals to change the way FECA is administered for older beneficiaries share characteristics with past proposals we have discussed in prior work. In August 1996, we reported on the issues associated with changing FECA benefits for older beneficiaries. Because FECA's benefit structure has not been significantly amended in more than 35 years, the policy questions raised in our 1996 report are still relevant and important today. This testimony will focus on (1) previous proposals for changing FECA benefits for older beneficiaries and (2) questions and associated issues that merit consideration in crafting legislation to change benefits for older beneficiaries. This statement is drawn primarily from our 1996 report in which we solicited views from selected federal agencies and employee groups to identify questions and associated issues with crafting benefit changes. For that report, we also reviewed relevant laws and analyzed previous studies and legislative proposals that would have changed benefits for older FECA beneficiaries. The perception that many retirement-age beneficiaries were receiving more generous benefits on FECA had generated two alternative proposals to change benefits once beneficiaries reach the age at which retirement typically occurs: (1) converting FECA benefits to retirement benefits and, (2) changing FECA wage-loss benefits by establishing a new FECA annuity. We also discussed a number of issues to be considered in crafting legislation to change benefits for older beneficiaries. Going forward, Congress may wish to consider the following questions in assessing current proposals for change: (1) How would benefits be computed? (2) Which beneficiaries would be affected? (3) What criteria, such as age or retirement eligibility, would initiate changed benefits? (4) How would other benefits, such as FECA medical and survivor benefits, be treated and administered? (5) How would benefits, particularly retirement benefits, be funded?

What GAO Found

The retirement conversion alternative raises complex issues, arising in part from the fact that conversion could result in varying retirement benefits, depending on conversion provisions, retirement systems, and individual circumstances. A key issue is whether or not benefits would be adjusted. The unadjusted option would allow for retirement benefits as provided by current law. The adjusted option would typically ensure that time on the FECA rolls was treated as if the beneficiary had continued to work. This adjustment could (1) credit time on FECA for years of service or (2) increase the salary base (for example, increasing salary from the time of injury by either an index of wage increases or inflation, assigning the current pay of the position, or providing for merit increases and possible promotions missed due to the injury). Currently most federal employees are covered by FERS, but conversion proposals might have to consider differences between FERS and CSRS participants, and participants in any specialized retirement systems. Other groups that might be uniquely affected include injured workers who are not eligible for federal retirement benefits, individuals eligible for retirement conversion benefits, but not vested; and individuals who are partially disabled FECA recipients but active federal employees. With regard to vesting, those who have insufficient years of service to be vested might be given credit for time on the FECA rolls until vested. There is also the question of whether changes will focus on current or future beneficiaries. Exempting current beneficiaries delays receipt of full savings from FECA cost reductions to the future. One option might be a transition period for current beneficiaries. For example, current beneficiaries could be given notice that their benefits would be changed after a certain number of years. Past proposals have used either age or retirement eligibility as the primary criterion for changing benefits. If retirement eligibility is used, consideration must be given to establishing eligibility for those who might otherwise not become retirement eligible. This would be true for either the retirement conversion or the annuity option. At least for purposes of initiating the changed benefit, time on the FECA rolls might be treated as if it counted for service time toward retirement eligibility. Deciding on the criteria that would initiate change in benefits might require developing benchmarks. In addition to changing FECA compensation benefits, consideration should be given to whether to change other FECA benefits, such as medical benefits or survivor benefits. For example, the 1981 Reagan administration proposal would have ended survivor benefits under FECA for those beneficiaries whose benefits were converted to the retirement system. For the retirement conversion alternative, another issue is the funding of any retirement benefit shortfall. Currently, agencies and individuals do not make retirement contributions if an individual receives FECA benefits; thus, if retirement benefits exceed those for which contributions have been made, retirement funding shortfalls would occur. Retirement fund shortfalls can be funded through payments made by agencies at the time of conversion or prior to conversion.