[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM: IS IT A GOOD VALUE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES? ======================================================================= HEARING before the SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE, U.S. POSTAL SERVICE AND THE CENSUS of the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ APRIL 11, 2013 __________ Serial No. 113-32 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov http://www.house.gov/reform _____ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 81-665 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland, MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania JACKIE SPEIER, California SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee MATTHEW A. CARTWRIGHT, TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Pennsylvania BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MARK POCAN, Wisconsin DOC HASTINGS, Washington TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois ROB WOODALL, Georgia DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky TONY CARDENAS, California DOUG COLLINS, Georgia STEVEN A. HORSFORD, Nevada MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico KERRY L. BENTIVOLIO, Michigan RON DeSANTIS, Florida Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director Stephen Castor, General Counsel Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and the Census BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas, Chairman TIM WALBERG, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, TREY GOWDY, South Carolina Ranking Minority Member DOUG COLLINS, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of RON DeSANTIS, Florida Columbia WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on April 11, 2013................................... 1 WITNESSES Mr. Jonathan Foley, Director, Planning and Policy Analysis, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Oral Statement............................................... 5 Written Statement............................................ 7 Mr. William A. Breskin, Vice President of Government Programs, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association Oral Statement............................................... 16 Written Statement............................................ 19 Mr. Thomas C. Choate, Chief Growth Officer, UnitedHealthCare Oral Statement............................................... 31 Written Statement............................................ 33 Mr. Mark Merritt, President and CEO, Pharmaceutical Care Management Association Oral Statement............................................... 41 Written Statement............................................ 43 Ms. Jacqueline Simon, Public Policy Director, American Federation of Government Employees Oral Statement............................................... 59 Written Statement............................................ 61 APPENDIX The Honorable Blake Farenthold, a Member of Congress from the State of Texas, Opening Statement.............................. 92 The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Member of Congress from the District of Columbia, Opening Statement.................... 93 Health Plan Competition in the FEHB Program...................... 95 Testimony of Walton Francis, Independent Consultant and Principal Author of Checkbook's Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees...................................................... 103 Questions for the Record to Mr. Jonathan Foley................... 116 THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS PROGRAM: IS IT A GOOD VALUE FOR FEDERAL EMPLOYEES? ---------- Thursday, April 11, 2013 House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, U.S. Postal Service and The Census, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Blake Farenthold [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Farenthold, Walberg, Gowdy, DeSantis, Issa and Norton. Also Present: Representative Connolly. Staff Present: Molly Boyl, Majority Parliamentarian; Caitlin Carroll, Majority Deputy Press Secretary; Sharon Casey, Majority Senior Assistant Clerk; Adam P. Fromm, Majority Director of Member Liaison and Floor Operations; Linda Good, Majority Chief Clerk; Jennifer Hemingway, Majority Senior Professional Staff Member; Mark D. Marin, Majority Director of Oversight; James Robertson, Majority Professional Staff Member; Laura L. Rush, Majority Deputy Chief Clerk; Scott Schmidt, Majority Deputy Director of Digital Strategy; Peter Warren, Majority Policy Director; Jaron Bourke, Minority Director of Administration; Lena Chang, Minority Counsel; Kevin Corbin, Minority Professional Staff Member; Yvette Cravins, Minority Counsel; Carla Hultberg, Minority Chief Clerk; Adam Koshkin, Minority Research Assistant; Safiya Simmons, Minority Press Secretary; and Mark Stephenson, Minority Director of Legislation. Mr. Farenthold. The subcommittee will come to order. As is our tradition, I would like to begin this hearing by stating the Oversight Committee's mission statement. We exist to secure two fundamental principles: first, Americans have a right to know the money is taken from them from Washington is well spent and, second, Americans deserve an efficient, effective Government that works for them. Our duty on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee is to protect these rights. Our solemn responsibility is to hold the Government accountable to taxpayers, because taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their Government. We will work tirelessly in partnership with citizen watchdogs to deliver the facts to the American people and bring genuine reform to the Federal bureaucracy. This is the mission of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. At this point I will recognize myself for a brief opening statement. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program is the largest employer-based health insurance program in the Country, covering more than 8 million Federal workers, retirees, and their family members through the plans participating in. Since 1960, the plan has offered Federal participants multiple health plan options through private health insurers, a hallmark of the program. The average health insurance premiums are on the rise. More specifically, the FEHB premium has risen 5.78 percent over the last five years. While this is a pretty small increase compared to what we are seeing in some private sector rates, where rates have risen much more, it is our duty to see how we can continue to save taxpayers' hard-earned dollars and provide the best coverage for our Federal workforce. In these tough times, we must ensure that OPM is providing affordable benefits to FEHB participants in the most cost-effective way and giving them the best benefits that we can afford. Recently, a study by the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, found that, on the average, the cost of health benefits, including health insurance, was 48 percent higher for Federal civilian workers than for their private sector counterparts, perhaps explaining the lower percentage increase in the premium. But the Federal Government still pays, on average, $6.00 per hour more for employee benefits than in the private sector. It goes without saying that buying power is also important. Competition is critical, as well. OPM can leverage enrollees' purchasing power to reduce costs and obtain greater value for Federal workers and their family, as well as for the Federal Government and taxpayers. The OPM must manage today for future increases in costs and projected increases in utilization of health care services. The President's budget, announced yesterday, has several initiatives intended to improve the value of FEHB. This hearing provides committee members the opportunity to determine the impact these and other proposals will have on provider choice, coverage, and cost. As Government watchdogs, we are always looking for ideas that will lower costs and improve the value of FEHB without unnecessarily restricting consumer choice. With these broad goals in mind, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today and for their willingness to testify. I will now recognize the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, for her opening statement. [Prepared statement of Mr. Farenthold follows:] Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for bringing together these witnesses to discuss the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, including the Administration's proposals for what it calls modernizing the program. FEHBP is, of course, the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the Country, covering 8 million individuals. Last year it provided close to $45 billion in benefits to Federal employees, retirees, and their families. Since its creation in 1959, FEHBP has been regarded as a model for health insurance reform, and private and public insurance programs such as Medicare. It has also been looked at as a way to expand insurance coverage to the non-Federal community, such as small business employees or the uninsured. FEHBP has generally performed as well or better than large private employers. Industry experts have rated the benefits offered to enrollees as competitive with other employers. Premium increases are consistently below those of other large employers. For example, according to Barclays U.S. Healthcare, over the last decade, FEHBP premiums have increased 7.7 percent, compared with 9.3 percent in the commercial market. In 2012, FEHBP premiums increased by 3.8 percent, while the industry surveys show that private sector plans rose by an average of 8.1 percent. However, this does not mean that FEHBP is a perfect program or that it does not need improvement. For example, coverage for same sex domestic partners, while prevalent in the private sector, is currently not included in FEHBP. Prescription drugs are of a particular concern. One-third, or $15 billion, of the total FEHBP annual costs were for prescription drugs; and OPM estimates that, for 2013, 25 percent of that, or about $4 billion, will be spent on specialty drugs. That is a significant increase over 2009, when specialty drugs accounted for only 10 percent. This hearing provides stakeholders and members with a chance to discuss the pros and cons of the FEHB proposals, including in President Obama's fiscal year 2014 budget that was just issued. While I share the Administration's view that the 50-plus-year-old FEHB Program can be, as the Administration puts it, modernized, but certainly improved, I believe we should approach this cautiously and deliberately to ensure that any changes would improve the health of our Federal employees and retirees, and keep premiums and costs low and affordable. This is especially important at this juncture because Federal employees are already experiencing pay and benefit cuts, and cannot afford to take more hits. Federal employees are working under a three-year pay freeze. New employees are forced to pay more for their retirement contributions than existing employees, and more Federal workers face furloughs. On top of that, the President has recommended in his budget that Federal workers contribute an additional 1.2 percent more for their pensions and accept a reduced COLA for their annuities based on the changed CPI formula. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and appreciate this opportunity to examine the merits of the Administration's proposals, and look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses and thank them for their testimony. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Ms. Norton. We will now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa. Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this important hearing. And I want to thank Delegate Norton, our ranking member, because, in fact, this is the first and only federal exchange. Eight million Americans depend on this exchange, and it is the model, at best, for what we intend to make available to those who do not otherwise have employer healthcare providers. Numerous times during the Affordable Health Care Act drafting and discussion I used the FEHB as the model for perhaps everyone who should have the same fine health care that members of Congress and every Federal employee has. Why not? Let us just simply duplicate this. So when I discover, as the President has discovered, that although a great and longstanding model, it is not a model with as open a process and as much competition as we could have. I look and say, my goodness, if we can't get this 50-year-old system to be optimized, will we in fact deal as well with 50 State systems; some of them run by the States directly, some of them federalized. So today's hearing is important on all those counts. I think to every member of Congress who is in that program. It is important. To every staff member now or retired, who depend on this system, getting it right, getting competition, opening it up in a way that is a plus, and not a minus, is important, but I think for all of us who are seeing the testimony today, let's just assume that they are testifying about a national exchange that every American is going to be in. Do we currently have a system that would make the optimum national exchange or should we make it better? And can we do better for the 8 million and the other 316 million Americans? With that, I thank the chairman and yield back. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point let's introduce our members of the panel. Before I do that, I do want to say, without objection, all members will have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. Now we will go to our panel. First up will be Mr. Jonathan Foley. He is the Director of Planning and Policy Analysis at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Next up will be Mr. William A. Breskin. He is the Vice President of Government Affairs at Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Mr. Thomas C. Choate is the Chief Growth Officer at UnitedHealthCare. Mr. Mark Merritt is President and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. And Ms. Jacqueline Simon is Public Policy Director for the American Federation of Government Employees. Pursuant to the rules of the committee, all witnesses will be sworn before they testify. Would the witnesses please rise with me? If you will raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? [Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] Mr. Farenthold. Let the record reflect that all witnesses have answered in the affirmative. You may be seated. We have a relatively large panel today. In order that everyone has sufficient amount of time to testify and the members of the subcommittee have sufficient amount of time to ask questions, we would ask that you limit your remarks to five minutes. There is a timer in front of you that will count down with a green light, then a yellow light, and a red light. When the red light comes on, it will start up and we will know exactly how long you went over. So we have your entire testimony that you submitted in the record. Hopefully, the members of the committee have already reviewed it. So if you will summarize what you consider to be the salient points in the five minutes, it would be greatly appreciated. We will start with Mr. Foley. You are recognized for five minutes. WITNESS STATEMENTS STATEMENT OF JONATHAN FOLEY Mr. Foley. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Established in 1960, the FEHB Program is the largest employer-sponsored health insurance program in the Country, covering approximately 8.2 million Federal employees, retirees, and their dependents. The Office of Personnel Management administers this $45 billion program through contracts with private insurers. Currently, there are 95 health plan contracts, with 230 different Government options. The FEHB Program uses market competition and consumer choice to provide comprehensive benefits at an affordable cost. Average yearly premium increases have declined in each of the last four years, dropping from 7.4 percent in 2010 to 3.4 percent in 2013. My written testimony addresses the subcommittee's interest regarding the relationship between Medicare and the FEHB Program, and the impact of the Affordable Care Act on the program. I will spend the remainder of my remarks discussing the FEHB Program and its modernization. The FEHB Program was designed to offer a range of health insurance choices that are reflective of the most competitive options available in the commercial marketplace. As the health insurance market continues to change, OPM has done its best to keep pace. However, there are a number of areas where the original authorizing legislation passed in 1959 constrains OPM from responding to the changed marketplace. For example, the statute only allows OPM to contract with four plan types. Under the service benefit plan type, Blue Cross Blue Shield offers two government-wide benefit options. The second plan time, indemnity benefit plan was held by Aetna until the late 1980s, but is now vacant. The third plan type consists of employee organization plans. The employee organization plans were grandfathered into the FEHB Program and no new employee organization plans are permitted to join. The final plan type is made up of comprehensive health plans, HMOs, offered at the State level, which have no restrictions in the number of plans participating as long as they meet FEHB qualifying criteria and State licensure laws. Missing from the current mix are regional plans that are widely available in the commercial market. If these regional plans were available, FEHB enrollees would benefit from having greater choices that represent best practices in the private sector and more closely resemble product combinations available to private employers and State and local governments. It is important to emphasize that this proposal would not require that OPM contract with every health plan that applies to participate in the FEHB Program. This proposal would simply provide OPM with the ability to consider additional plan types and contract with plans only when it is in the best interest of the FEHB Program and its enrollees. Next, OPM proposes increasing its contracting discretion by allowing direct contracting with pharmacy benefit managers. Most FEHB carriers contract with pharmacy benefit managers to purchase prescription drugs and manage pharmacy benefits on behalf of their enrollees. However, current law precludes OPM from contracting directly with PBMs. With the ability to contract directly for PBM services, OPM would obtain better discounts by leveraging the 8.2 million covered lives, providing for more uniform performance across the FEHB, and allowing a more consistent formulary structure and patient care management. OPM also proposes authorizing the FEHB Program to offer a ``self plus one'' enrollment option, aligning the program with other large and private employers, as well as State and local governments. Currently, the FEHB Program is only authorized to offer self only and self and family options. By adding the self plus one option, an employee or retiree who does not need a family plan, for example, because they need only to cover a spouse or a child, can choose the self plus one option, rather than the self and family option. OPM also proposes allowing FEHB enrollees to add a domestic partner to their FEHB enrollment. This proposal would align the FEHB Program with best practices in the private sector, as larger employers competing for talent are increasingly offering domestic partner benefits. Finally, OPM proposes allowing premium differentials tied to wellness. This proposal provides OPM with the authority to prove a limited adjustment to rates charged to enrollees based on their health status and participation in health and wellness programs. For instance, this proposal would allow OPM to increase the enrollee share of premiums for those who use tobacco products and do not participate in tobacco cessation programs. This proposal aligns the FEHB Program with current trends in the commercial market, increases the use of preventive services, and encourages enrollees to make improvements to their health status, resulting in a reduction or delay of the onset of chronic diseases and associated costs. Overall, these proposals would result in net mandatory savings of $8.4 billion over a 10-year period. In addition to cost savings, the proposals directly support OPM's mission of recruiting, retaining, and honoring a world-class workforce to serve the American people. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am happy to address any questions you have. [Prepared statement of Mr. Foley follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. I am sure we will be back to you with questions when we finish the panel. Mr. Breskin, you are now recognized for five minutes. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM A. BRESKIN Mr. Breskin. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and other members of the subcommittee, good morning. My name is Bill Breskin and I am the Vice President of Government Programs for the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the value of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program. We look forward, with members of the subcommittee, to ensure that Federal employees and retirees continue to have high quality, affordable health care coverage. The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and participating independent local Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans have jointly administered the government-wide Service Benefit Plan from the very beginning of the program in 1960. Today we provide health insurance to more than 5.2 million active and retired Federal employees and their dependents. Last year, for the second consecutive year, premiums for the most popular option increased by only 2 percent. We are proud of the millions of Federal employees that select Blue Cross Blue Shield for our affordable premiums, our high level of customer satisfaction, low administrative costs, and constant innovation. With 230 product offerings in the Federal workforce nationwide, and with very high levels of customer satisfaction, the FEHBP is often cited as a model for choice and competition. No matter where they live, Federal enrollees can choose from among a minimum of 13 national products offered by six different carriers, each with a uniform premium nationwide. In fact, 80 percent of Federal employees select these nationwide options. Combined with local plan options such as HMOs, high deductible health plans, and consumer-directed health plans, Federal enrollees may have as many as 24 different plan choices in some States. No other employer-sponsored health program anywhere offers anything like this level of choice. Indeed, it would be hard to identify any government program having greater competition. Blue Cross Blue Shield has remained dedicated to FEHBP enrollees, having offered its products for 53 years, every year since the Program's inception. We know that Federal employees and retirees have a broad choice of coverage every year. We also understand the need to reduce; Federal spending has never been greater, and we are leading in care delivery, innovation, and other key strategies that improve health and attack health cost drivers. We leverage the innovations and provide the relationships used by 85 of the Fortune 100 companies who turn to the Blues for their employee health benefits. Out standard in basic option plans offer more than 25 innovative features, including wellness programs and incentives, online transparency tools, and other management programs to improve the health of Federal employees and the value of their benefits. The service benefit plan will also offer patient-centered medical homes in every State, plus the District of Columbia, by the end of the year, having already offered PCMH in several States. No one is more innovative and committed to bringing cutting-edge innovation to the FEHBP than the service benefit plan. Today I want to offer the Blues perspective on two proposed changes to the FEHBP: first, the addition of regional PPOs in the program and, second, the prescription drug carve-out. Introducing regional PPOs into the FEHBP will result in higher costs for both the Federal Government and Federal employees, and will jeopardize the most popular nationwide offerings. Instead of offering uniform premiums nationwide, regional PPOs will be allowed to cherry-pick low-cost regions and charge a premium that reflects the cost of that region only. This will lead to higher premiums in the nationwide plans or regions not picked up by the new PPOs, as more enrollees in the low-cost areas choose the regional PPOs. Within a few years, the nationwide plans will become noncompetitive and will likely stop offering nationwide coverage altogether. This would leave certain areas of the Country undeserved or potentially not served at all, and create gross disparities in health insurance coverage for enrollees in different areas. An analogy exists in the Medicare Advantage Program: a national PPO is allowed, but there has never been a nationwide option because nationally priced PPOs cannot coexist with locally rated PPOs, for the same reason that would occur in the FEHBP should regional PPOs be allowed. Assuming all PPOs were offered on a regional basis, 54 percent of Federal employees and retirees are likely to see their health premiums increase. An analysis of Avalere Health concludes that Federal spending would increase by $5.7 billion over 10 years if PPOs were offered on a regional basis. Rather than introducing regional products into the FEHBP and creating an unlevel playing field for competition, we believe a better approach would be to open up the program to any carrier willing to participate on a level playing field nationwide, and to give carriers additional flexibility to offer products and more aggressively incorporate their latest private sector innovations for controlling costs. Another change that is being proposed is consolidating contracting for prescription drug benefit management in the FEHBP. Proponents of the carve-out approach argue that streamlined purchasing of prescription drugs will save money and lower administrative costs. However, under the pharmacy benefit carve-out, health plans will have limited access to pharmacy claims that would otherwise help identify members who may benefit from case management and coordination of care. This leads to increased costs and poorer health outcomes. Furthermore, prescription drug carve-out will reduce beneficiary choice by limiting prescription drug benefits, preventative effective integrated management of pharmacy and medical benefits, and compromised care management utilization management techniques that help ensure safety and adhere to best practices. In closing, let me say that the career staff at OPM have done a superb job in managing this program, which is the gold standard of competition and choice, and a model for health care reform. We have identified in our testimony additional innovations that OPM should consider, including premium discounts, incentives for enrollees to choose high-quality providers, and coverage for new, cutting-edge access for points for health care. Blue Cross Blue Shield is committed to working with OPM and Congress to keep the FEP at the forefront of innovation and make the FEHBP even better, without disrupting the coverage millions of Federal employees have selected today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the value of the FEHBP and I look forward to your questions. [Prepared statement of Mr. Breskin follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. We will now go to Mr. Choate from United. Thank you. STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. CHOATE Mr. Choate. Thank you, Chairman Farenthold and Congresswoman Norton, for holding this important and timely hearing. I am honored to give UnitedHealth Group's perspective on how increased competition will bring more choices, higher quality and better value to Federal employees in the health benefits program. Reform of the program will better serve the program's sponsors, beneficiaries, and the American taxpayers. My name is Tom Choate and I am the Chief Growth Officer for UnitedHealthCare, a business segment of UnitedHealth Group. I have worked for many years on our FEHBP business and with the Office of Personnel Management. United Health Group is a diversified health benefits services company based in Minnetonka, Minnesota. We serve more than 80 million people and have the unique ability to engage in all aspects of the health care delivery system and apply lessons learned at a full-scale in the marketplace. As a result, we view health care delivery and benefit design through multiple lenses. One thing we know for certain: it is essential for any employer who sponsors health plans to be able to offer choice of affordable, high-quality benefit options to its employees, while ensuring the employer gets the best value for its resources. Unlike virtually any other employer, the Federal Government can't do this because it is hindered by the law governing the program. That law has not been updated in any meaningful way since President Eisenhower signed it in 1959. The law reflects the way health care was delivered and consumed five decades ago. As a result, competition in the program has eroded. Since 1995, one plan has more than doubled its market share, from 30 percent to 62 percent of Federal workers. The second largest plan has 7 percent market share. To be clear, that is a 55 point difference between number one and number two competitors. That is clearly not a market in which real competition exists. OPM itself acknowledged last year that ``the competitive environment is not as robust as it should be.'' The result of this virtual monopoly is exactly what you would expect, it is a system with no real incentives to increase quality, value, and choice for more than 8 million people. It also limits the Federal Government's ability to confront the challenge of rising health care costs. Lack of competition inevitably leads to the following issues: first, as with any market that becomes more concentrated, consumers pay more. This is clearly an issue with FEHBP. Last year, a Health Affairs article found that in areas of strong program competitiveness, premiums were more than 10 percent lower than compared to areas of low competition. It also found that real competition in the program only exists in about 15 percent of the Country. That means that in 85 percent of the Country people in this program pay more than they should because competition does not exist in any meaningful way. Second, with little competition, health plans have fewer incentives and little capacity to innovate and provide better quality. And, third, Government costs continue to rise. This year the program will cost taxpayers $34 billion. In this age of fiscal challenges, the Federal Government needs the same tools to manage costs that every other large employer has. The President's 2014 budget, released yesterday, calls for Congress to make several reforms to the program. This includes a proposal that would give OPM the authority to offer new health plans with comprehensive medical benefits. This proposal provides no advantage to any one plan; it merely adjusts the program to reflect the realities of the modern health care system. Plans would still be required to meet all of OPM's existing requirements for participation. OPM would still exercise its oversight authority. In fact, OPM's role in premium design and benefit negotiations would be strengthened by increased competition. The premise underlying the FEHBP since its inception in 1959 was that competition among health plans results in lower prices and better value. Much has changed since 1959. We have moved from rotary phones to smart phones and from 45s to iTunes. The driving force behind such innovation has been competition, which revolutionized the way we live, including the way many Americans consume health care. Now it is time to update the 1959 law. Federal employees and taxpayers should benefit from the innovation and competition in the market, just as they do in every other market. In closing, we all know one thing has not changed since 1959: the simple economic principle that consumers benefit from increased competition. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning and for your leadership on this committee. [Prepared statement of Mr. Choate follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Choate. We will now recognize Mr. Mark Merritt, the President and CEO of Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. Mr. Merritt, you are recognized for five minutes. STATEMENT OF MARK MERRITT Mr. Merritt. Good morning, Chairman Farenthold and members of the committee. I am Mark Merritt, President of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. PCMA is a national association representing America's pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, who administer prescription drug benefits for more than 216 million Americans through Fortune 500 companies, insurers, unions, FEHBP, Medicare Part D, and other State and Federal agencies. PBMs use a number of sophisticated tools and strategies to modernize pharmacy benefits, reduce cost, and expand access to medications. Specifically, we negotiate discounts from drugstores and drug manufacturers, design formularies that promote generics, create pharmacy networks that offer 90-day mail service, and use health IT like e-prescribing to improve patient safety. Although no employer or government program is required to use a PBM, almost all choose to do so because of the savings and improvement of benefits involved. Each PBM client has different needs and decides for itself how aggressive to be in terms of cost-cutting, formulary design, drugstore networks, and other areas of pharmacy coverage. In 2003, Congress modeled Medicare Part D on the successful examples of FEHBP and other employers which reduce costs by hiring PBMs to administer benefits and negotiate discounts. Fortunately, Part D has been a great success. It is not only extraordinarily popular with seniors, but it is the only major entitlement program to come in under budget each year of its operation. Likewise, in Medicaid, several governors, ranging from Andrew Cuomo of New York to Rick Perry of Texas, have begun to engage PBMs to reduce wasteful pharmacy spending. PBMs helped save New York Medicaid over $400 million in the first year alone, and this was done without cutting benefits or reducing the number of Medicaid enrollees. On a national scale, a recent report shows that overall U.S. prescription drug spending actually dropped last year. But there is more PBMs can do to reduce costs for payers across the Nation, including FEHBP. Long recognized as the gold standard for employer-sponsored health benefits, FEHBP, nonetheless, has unique and specific needs. First, unlike some Federal programs which simply deliver health benefits to a fixed set of enrollees, FEHBP uses benefits as part of a broader strategy to recruit and retain Federal workers. This requires generous benefits that offer broad choice, flexibility, and access. Accordingly, FEHBP offers a wide range of options for Federal workers, retirees, and their families. Apparently, the approach is working, because a recent OPM survey showed that enrollees are satisfied with their benefits by a 7 to 1 margin. Second, many FEHBP retirees are enrolled in Medicare Part A and B, but not Part D. They choose, instead, to maintain their FEHBP drug coverage an allow Medicare to cover their other medical expenses. Lastly, FEHBP's active population is older than that of the typical employer and likely to take more prescription drugs. PCMA believes OPM has significant running room to innovate and further reduce pharmacy benefit costs. To this end, OPM has suggested in its March Carrier letter the plan's detail how to make better use of PBM tools like tiered cost sharing, prior authorization, and step therapy to promote generics and more affordable brands. OPM also encourages plans to explore mail service and specialty pharmacies, and specifically highlights the potential of preferred pharmacy networks, which can achieve even greater savings on prescription drugs with minimal member disruption. In closing, we understand and appreciate OPM for seeking new ways to leverage PBM tools to improve prescription drug benefits in FEHBP. We look forward to working with the members of the committee on this and other important issues. Thank you for having me today and I would be happy to take any questions you might have. [Prepared statement of Mr. Merritt follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Merritt. We will now recognize Ms. Jacqueline Simon, Public Policy Director for the AFGE. STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE SIMON Ms. Simon. Chairman Farenthold, Ranking Member Norton, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the more than 650,000 Federal workers in 65 agencies that AFGE represents. Health insurance benefits are extremely important to AFGE's members. We have been very frustrated by our inability to have much of a voice when it comes to FEHBP. Because the program is statutory, we are unable to use the collective bargaining process to make our priorities and preferences known, and OPM has, in the past four years, adopted a culture of extreme secrecy regarding FEHBP, leaving us almost completely in the dark about the program and the changes they have contemplated. In particular, our request for information about the likely impact on enrollees of changes being considered today were refused until the last minute, when OPM realized we intended to complain about the withholding of information at today's hearing. In fact, all we had received prior to preparation of our testimony was a large font 10 screen PowerPoint presentation from last December that raised many questions, but answered none. We ultimately received another document last week that revealed what was in the Administration's budget release yesterday; that the proposals amount to a multi-billion dollar cost-shifting that will ultimately cause great financial harm to many of our members. Federal employees currently pay an average of 30 percent of FEHBP premiums, in addition to sometimes substantial out-of- pocket deductibles and co-payments. In some plans, the employees' share of premiums is 64 percent. Yet, we get almost no information or any input in decisions about changes in benefits, administration, or structure. We are apparently supposed to just keep quiet and keep paying. After a three-year pay freeze, massive increases in employee costs for FERS and furloughs of up to 14 days, Federal employees can hardly afford to keep quiet. And like every other middle-class American, no Federal employee can afford to pay any more than absolutely necessary for health insurance. We believe the changes in FEHBP that OPM is proposing will have some winners and losers, but that overall they will shift costs for the program away from the Government and onto the backs of Federal workers. The proposal described as giving discounts for wellness would charge more to those with the misfortune of being ill or aged or overweight. The proposal to expand plan types is a proposal that will bring in plans with inferior benefit packages and will worsen the program's already risk segmentation. It will also mean charging employees in high health care cost cities more for their health care. These are not necessarily cities where salaries are higher. The proposal to carve out prescription drugs may become a proposal to transform the prescription drug coverage into either a voucher or, worse, an employee pay all pseudo benefit. The proposal to add ``self plus one'' is a proposal to charge families with more than two persons more for their benefits. Interestingly, when the PowerPoint was shown to AFGE last December, there was a slide with an OPM proposal to eliminate the statutory provision that prevents the Government from paying more than 75 percent of any FEHBP premium. It was presumably the spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down. All the other proposals take benefits away. This one would have helped many low paid and uninsured Federal workers gain some coverage. But this proposal has been eliminated from the PowerPoint document that now circulates. Word is that OPM approved the cuts and nixed the one thing that would have provided a benefit. So AFGE is in a difficult position. We believe strongly that FEHBP is in need of reform, but all the rhetoric about the benefits of competition, how it will lower costs, ring hollow when there is no standard benefits package and the program is structured to maximize risk segmentation. Without a standard benefits package, competition doesn't lower prices, it just divides up the market. OPM's proposals divide up the market further, geographically in terms of risk and in terms of health status. As for regional PPOs, we know the most expensive and least accountable plans in the program are the regional HMOs. They are in and out of the program, merge with one another, drop providers, add providers. They are generally unstable. We often hear from our members that these regional plans charge the Government far more than they charge local employers. But again OPM has not made the case on the merits of this proposal; we are just told that it is a best practice in the private sector, a sector not known for best practices in the area of health insurance. We believe strongly that in light of the extremely large share of FEHBP costs that Federal employees shoulder, we deserve an opportunity to have input on the benefit structure and administration of this program; not a PowerPoint once in a blue moon, but a regular exchange of information and concerns, and opportunity to have questions answered and employees' perspectives given serious consideration. We have such opportunities in the thrift savings plan, we have it with the Federal Salary Council for workers on the general schedule, and in the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Council for blue collar Federal workers. All these advisory councils are statutory and all work extremely well. We urge the subcommittee to consider establishing an FEHBP advisory committee so that Federal employees have a regular opportunity to learn more about their health insurance program and know that their interests, views, and concerns are receiving the attention they deserve. Thank you. [Prepared statement of Ms. Simon follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Ms. Simon. We appreciate your testimony and I certainly do have some questions for you when the time comes. Pursuant to an agreement with the minority, Mr. Walberg, who has another hearing or something to attend, we are going to go out of the normal order of questioning. Mr. Walberg has quite a few questions, so we have agreed to allow Mr. Walberg 10 minutes for questioning, and then Ms. Norton 10 minutes of questioning, then we will come back to myself and Mr. Gowdy for the usual five minutes of questioning, and any other members who may show up in the meantime. So at this point I will recognize Mr. Walberg for 10 minutes. Mr. Walberg. Well, I thank the chairman. Being subcommittee chairman and my subcommittee going on right now, you understand why I would like to get back as soon as possible, so that they don't realize they can do it better without me. First, I would like to thank you and I would like to thank Chairman Issa for holding this important hearing. I certainly, had I been here when the witnesses were welcomed, would want to welcome them as well and thank them for appearing across the board. Today we take a look at the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program and consider changes that can strengthen the program going forward. I have reviewed each of the witnesses' testimony and concluded that the FEHBP has been a valuable and well-administered program, but also one that is seriously hampered in responding to the present challenges and opportunities in the health care marketplace. Unfortunately, the FEHBP and its administrator, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, OPM, are hamstrung by a 50- plus-year-old statute which locks OPM into a delivery structure that reflected the health care industry in 1959, but not now. Most reforms, such as those outlined in the President's budget, which was released yesterday, can provide the statutory changes necessary to allow the FEHBP to access the myriad products and services that comprise today's health care marketplace. The hallmarks of a model health care program are healthy competition, consumer choice, and high-quality care at a reasonable cost. The FEHBP, through most of its existence, has included these vital components. However, due to the lack of authority for OPM to entertain scores of new and different insurance products, the program has stagnated. There are roughly 50 percent fewer carriers participating in the program today than in 1990. Many Federal employees and retirees, depending on where they live, have limited options to choose from. Many of the latest plan designs and innovations in health care management are not available to either OPM, as the administrator of the plan, or Federal employees and retirees as participants in the plan. For all these reasons, opening up the FEHBP to greater competition and, therefore, greater choice will serve the Federal Government, Federal employees, and retirees and taxpayers well. OPM will retain all of its regulatory and negotiating authority to ensure the prospective new plan entrants will strengthen the overall program and provide greater value to the participants. I am particularly pleased that there is interest in addressing this issue by both the legislature and the executive branch. As such, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record OPM's white paper on the subject, as well as a letter from three providers, Aetna, Humana, and UnitedHealthcare. Mr. Farenthold. Without objection, so ordered. Mr. Walberg. Let me ask my first question, Mr. Breskin. Thank you for being here. The assumptions that your commissioned Avalere report made about the introduction of new plans appears, at least to me, wholly speculative. Wouldn't you agree it more likely that new plans would enter in a gradual manner, reflect a variety of health plan types, and that OPM would exercise its authority to ensure that the program operates in the best interests of the Government and its participants? Mr. Breskin. Thank you for the question. My reaction is I don't know how it would play out. I certainly know this: there is quite a bit of interest, at least in one carrier, in getting into the program on a regional basis, and there have been no assurances whatsoever that when they get in on a regional basis that they are planning to serve the interests of all employees, all of the Federal workforce throughout the Country. The point we have raised and the point that the Avalere study is focused on is the concern about cherry-picking, the idea that if there are regional PPOs, that regional PPOs can choose low-cost areas, come in, offer their products at a much lower rate than the national carriers have to because the national carriers are offering a single rate across the Country, and it will cause actually a noncompetitive situation. It is important, when we talk about competition, not just to talk about the idea of more people starting into the program, but also the effect on competition between having an unlevel playing field between national PPOs and regional PPOs. And the effect that will have is the national PPOs will not be able to offer, because they have a single national rate, a competitive product in those lower cost areas and will eventually be forced to go regional as well. So what you will end up with, actually, is fewer choices for Federal employees, particularly in higher cost areas, and possibly no choices for Federal employees in those high cost areas. So Avalere's premise, I think it is a valid one, I do not think it is speculative at all; I think it reflects the concerns we have and the concerns about the cherry-picking that would likely occur if someone was able to come in regionally. Mr. Walberg. Well, I appreciate that and I think that really establishes and sets the framework of understanding here, and I would continue to say there are a lot of assumptions, especially with OPM and the responsibility that they have shown and how they are undertaken. I guess I would turn to you, Mr. Foley. Do you agree with both its assumptions, the Avalere report commissioned by Blue Cross Blue Shield, and the conclusions in that report? If not, could you tell us why not? Mr. Foley. No, I don't agree with the assumptions and with the conclusions. To start off, in terms of the cherry-picking concern, OPM has that concern now with the current marketplace, and we manage that issue by negotiating with our local health plans and with our national health plans to make sure that the local plans are not just choosing areas that are advantageous to them and undercut other health plans. So we do that now in our current market, and we would do that when we have regional PPOs. We would look to make sure that a regional PPO is in the best interest of the enrollees and of the program overall, and does not undercut markets. We would make sure that they are responsible programs in that regard. The Avalere study assumes a very high rate of switching of enrollees based, apparently, on price. So they have elasticity assumptions that don't jive with our current experience or experience over the past 50 years in terms of how employees and retirees respond to price signals when the FEHB Program. Choosing a health plan is a complex decision. Often it is about the providers that you have or the brand name of the insurer, and a lot of other factors. So price is only one factor. So the elasticity assumptions I just couldn't agree with. Mr. Walberg. Well, if you could go into a little more detail in explaining how the agency would evaluate and accept new plan types in the program. Mr. Foley. Sure. We would look to, first of all, our normal process, where a health plan submits an application, and often it is the case that a new health plan requires two or three tries before they actually are accepted in the program because we have concerns about customer service or the benefits that are offered, or some of the competitive concerns that have been raised earlier. So all of those things would enter into play, so it might take a period of time before a new entrant would actually come into the market. When they do come into the market, we would look to make sure that the region that is described is several contiguous States, that does'nt pick any one market, does'nt undercut in any one market, but is a blend of markets so that it does'nt have the effect of some of the concerns that have been raised to date. We would go through our normal process in terms of making sure that the plan is financially sound, that it has good customer service, and all the other criteria that we apply normally to health plans would be applied to those plans. So we view this as an extension and an expansion of how we look at new entrants into the FEHB Program now. Mr. Walberg. Okay, thank you. Mr. Breskin, just to be clear, are you telling the committee today that Blue Cross Blue Shield would withdraw its participation as a service benefit plan if Congress gave OPM the authority to accept a broad range of new health plan types? Mr. Breskin. No, I am not. Mr. Walberg. Well, the report seems to indicate that. Mr. Breskin. Well, let me make things clear. First of all, our 53 year association in the FEHBP, I think, speaks for itself. It certainly speaks to our commitment to this program. We have been in it through thick and thin. We got down to a single day of reserve and we figured out a way to stay in the program back in 1982. So we are certainly not suggesting exiting. What we are suggesting, however, is that if we are put in a position where we cannot compete on a national basis with a national PPO in a competitive way, we would have no other choice but to continue our participation in the FEHBP in a way that would allow us to be competitive, which would have to be regional. A perfect analogy is on the Medicare Advantage Program, where regional PPOs were originally started in the Medicare Advantage Program and, in fact, back in 2003 there was an attempt to try to put in a national PPO product or national PPO products in the Medicare Advantage Program and, in fact, an incentive of 3 percent was given to any carrier that was willing to offer a national PPO product; and nobody did it. Nobody is doing it at this point, and the reason is you can't have two different sets of rules. So to answer your question, no, we are committed to this program for the long haul. But we obviously can't be put in a position where we can't compete in a position where we can't compete on a level playing field, and we would have to find that level playing field and compete in that way. Mr. Walberg. If I could ask one more question. Mr. Farenthold. Without objection. Mr. Walberg. Mr. Foley, if no changes are made to the structure of the program, where do you see the FEHBP in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years? Mr. Foley. Sure. As we look at it right now, the FEHB, if you look at it as a marketplace, is more concentrated than the commercial marketplace overall, so without changes, without additional authorities, we see a continuation of that concentration. And our concern is that that undercuts some of the competition that exists in the program and the choice of health plans. So it is difficult to say exactly where it will be 5, 10 years from now, but we have seen a continuing trend from the mid-1980s to a very high concentrated market, more highly concentrated than insurance markets commercially, and we see a continuation of that trend and the problems that are associated with it. Mr. Walberg. Less effective, less of an ability to provide comprehensive coverage, new plans, new programs, new ideas? Mr. Foley. Yes. Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your efforts. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Walberg. We will let you get back to your subcommittee as well. We will now recognize the gentlelady from the District of Columbia for 12 minutes. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Foley, my great problem with government has generally been that it doesn't innovate, so I am always open to innovation in government. I find I can't bear how hard it is to change one little thing in government. But I have to tell you the burden is really on you, especially when you use the word modernize when it comes to FEHB fix. Essentially what you are proposing to do is to fix what everybody believes, I think even you at this table do not believe, is broken. The chairman, the big chairman here, indicated, I think, quite factually that FEHBP has been a model for what this Administration is trying to do with their Affordable Health Care Act. You have a lot of chutzpah because you have in place the model and all we understand about what is happening with this Administration with the Affordable Health Care Act comes close to chaos. So at least you have one model that you can look to. Of course, it should be looked to as a model for what to do and what not to do. And as you do the Affordable Health Act, you could learn from that experience, because that is a true nationwide pool. So, in looking at your proposal, my concern would be capsulized in one word: price. You know, the word competition means nothing unless you are going to reduce the price for the average person on FEHBP. Remember, in most parts of the world there is only one payor; and I guess you figured out why. And that is what I want to first get back to. The reason that even Singapore has one payor is that the first rule of insurance is get the biggest pool you can. That is what you have managed to do. Moreover, you have the Post Office, you have members of Congress and all this great, big pool, the biggest pool in the Country. Do you think that pool, the size of that pool tells us anything about OPM's success in keeping premium costs lower than the private sector? Mr. Foley. First of all, thank you for your description of the program; it is a model program and it is one that we are proposing to modernize, but really these are changes that will occur over periods of years and really are in the spirit of the basic model, which is a competitive model and one that is based on choice. The large pool that we have, the 8.2 million covered lives, is an advantage to the program. Ms. Norton. If you had a smaller pool, the way the average employer apparently has, wouldn't that mean that the price for the average Federal worker would go up? Mr. Foley. It would decrease our negotiating power, and I think, with reference to the proposal about contracting authority, we are proposing to use that size, that large pool to negotiate lower prices in the pharmacy area. Ms. Norton. On the one hand you are trying to use that large pool, in the pharmacy area; in the other hand, with respect to the rest of health care, you are breaking up the pool. Mr. Foley. Well, the reason is different, and there are two different markets. So you have a pharmacy benefit manager share market, which has a few large players that are capable of handling the business that we would bring to them. You do not have that same situation in the health insurance base; you have many local plans, you have many national plans. And our strategy to increase competition in that space makes a lot of sense to us, given the market that is there. Ms. Norton. So you think the regional pools, for example, which are a smaller number of employees? Mr. Foley. We are not proposing regional pools. The regional plans would participate in the overall FEHB; they would be part of the same pool. So we are not carving up the pool in any way. And, in and of itself, that should decrease price, it shouldn't increase price. Ms. Norton. Well, wait a minute. The point is price. What is the point, then? If these pools do not lower the price, then why not stick with the pool that you have, since you already have the price coming down? Mr. Foley. Regional plans, not pools, regional plans will increase competition in the regions that they are serving, and we believe that that will lower price because it will lead to more competition; and that is what we are seeing in the commercial market, so we would like to bring that benefit to the FEHB market. Ms. Norton. So you are telling me that the pool would not be as Mr. Breskin says when he keeps his OPM cherry-picking; you are saying do not bother, we can manage anything, where they would cherry-pick the low-cost regions and charge a premium that reflects that region, shifting some costs to the larger FEHBP pool? I do not see how that can fail to happen. Mr. Foley. Again, our actuaries have looked at this in the way that the Avalere people looked at the circumstances, and they estimate modest savings for this over a 10-year window, so there are obviously different assumptions being used about the efficiency of the regional plan, about the propensity for Federal employees and retirees to switch plans. Ms. Norton. Well, let's get to switching plans. First of all, I think you have an obligation, as you come before us, to tell the members of Congress and their staffs who are sitting here is our Federal employees going to be on the exchange, so that all of this is essentially moot? I mean, we were told, when we passed the Affordable Health Care Act, that everyone would ``go on the exchange.'' What does that mean in terms of this? First of all, what does that mean? Are Federal employees no longer going to be a part of their own plan, as, I might add, other employers would continue to have, but are all a part of the exchange and therefore would go on the exchange to find the best deal, rather than be part of something called the FEHBP? I mean, I am confused as to where all of this starts in the first place, and here you are talking about changing it. No one has told members of Congress whether they are going to be part of the FEHBP or whether they should all be prepared to go into the exchange. Mr. Foley. Federal employees and retirees have employer- sponsored coverage, it is credible coverage, and they will not be going on exchanges. There is a provision, as you have referenced, that affects members of Congress and their staff. That is something that we are writing regulation on. Ms. Norton. Well, let's straighten that out. Are you saying to me that members of Congress and their staff will no longer be a part of the FEHBP? Mr. Foley. That is, right now, a subject of regulation. It would be inappropriate for me to comment. Ms. Norton. So we are certainly losing part of that pool. Let me go on. How would you manage what would otherwise is seen to be to the advantage of a regional plan to go to regions, lower cost regions, rather than have what every other employer has? Every other employer in the United States will have one or two, of course. We have this wonderful galaxy. How would you manage to keep the cherry-picking from transferring costs to the larger pool that is not in these regional pools? Mr. Foley. We would do it similar to the way we do it with local plans who come in and propose areas, and if we feel that the local plan is just picking the good risk or picking an area to undercut a competitor, and not in the best interest of enrollees and of the program overall, we negotiate a larger region or a different region. An analogy might be in the Pacific Northwest. If a regional plan came in and said that they wanted to offer products in Washington and Oregon, and we needed another plan in Alaska, we would negotiate that they take Alaska as well. And that is the power that we have as a negotiator and that is, I think, one of the strengths of this model, is our ability to act on behalf of enrollees, and I think that is why we have experienced the success we have over the 50 years we have had the program. Ms. Norton. I will leave that on the table and ask Mr. Breskin, in fact, I will ask Mr. Foley, perhaps both of you can explain this. This rendition that Mr. Choate's testimony gives of how the FEHBP started with many more plans and over the decades these plans dropped out; some were grandfathered in, most of them dropped out. Even the health maintenance organization dropped out. So part of the reason why one or two plans, and the first plan that has 60 percent, which on its face doesn't look very competitive, part of the reason may be that these others dropped out. Well, if you have been managing so well, how come all of these plans dropped out? Why didn't you keep a competitive FEHBP? Mr. Foley. We have over 230 plan options available. Ms. Norton. No, my question is not how many do you have now. My question is you grandfathered in plans, more than 400 participated in the program. It looks like, by attrition, some plans have gotten dominance, rather than by competition. Why didn't FEHBP manage to have more national plans in the program so that it would not be caught with a model that now gives one carrier 60 percent of the pool? Mr. Foley. Ms. Norton, our statute limits the number of plan types that we can have. Ms. Norton. So when did the others drop out? Mr. Foley. The dropping out has occurred mainly among local HMOs. If you recall, in the 1990s there was a large and robust HMO market. Ms. Norton. Did 400 plans initially participate in government-wide and nationwide plans? Mr. Foley. No. That 400 figure is probably sort of a high point, again, when there was a lot of HMO presence in the 1990s; and the FEHBP reflects a commercial market, to a large degree, so if there are a lot of HMOs locally, they tend to join the FEHB program. So we have 230 plan options and we have increased each of the last two years the number of plan options, and we work very hard to increase those options to increase competition. So we are doing what we can administratively, but the law restricts us in terms of adding national plans or adding regional plans, for that matter. Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is up. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much, Ms. Holmes. I was going to go next, but I do see the chairman of the full committee is here, and out of deference to the value of his time, I will go ahead and recognize him as our next majority member for five minutes. Mr. Issa. I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. I owe you, chairman. Mr. Foley, I want to be for the President's budget in this area, but let us go through a few things. First of all, standing behind an obsolete law is a bad excuse for why you can or can't do anything. Wouldn't you agree that you are in the business of saying to Congress, change the law? I have the opportunity to be in the business of changing laws. So, first of all, would you say that it is time to lift the cap on this four different--in other words, eliminate many of the brush that have become obsolete in the 1960 law? Mr. Foley. We think it is appropriate to add additional plan types and to allow the FEHBP to---- Mr. Issa. No, no, I understand what you are proposing doing, but I just want to get to the core of it. Let's scrap some of the limitations of the original law as a premise going forward. Aetna dropped out I think before I got in Congress, okay? It is time to say that is over with. Now, wouldn't you agree that the legacy of my own postal carrier and other organizational ones does, to a certain extent, already divide up the whole process, doesn't it? In other words, the postmaster has proposed leaving your system because he says he can save money. I know your organization doesn't agree, but you have two very large groups. As a matter of fact, he represents your largest single element, current and retired postal workers, and he says scrap it, I am leaving you and I am going to go bid for one big entity. Isn't that true? Mr. Foley. Yes, he has proposed---- Mr. Issa. Okay, so one of the processes should be for us to create a situation in which numbers-based, numbers-and service- based competitive responses should be able to be the primary determinant of changes in this program, isn't that true? Mr. Foley. Yes, we believe that that increases choice. Mr. Issa. Because Delegate Norton I think did a good job of questioning whether cherry-picking regions would make you save money in one region for which you would like to score, but then the national programs would have a tendency to say, in the next rebid, you have cherry-picked a lot of things, it is going to change how we work nationally, isn't that true? Inevitably that you can't score as you typically do, you score that there will be no change at the two dominant carriers in front of you, and then you take the savings. That is just the way savings tends to get scored, isn't it? Mr. Foley. No, we don't agree. Mr. Issa. But do you score an increase from Blue Cross as a result of going to regional cherry-picking? Because you have asked for the ability not to regionally bid come one, come all. You have asked for the ability to cherry-pick when it works to your benefit, isn't that true? Mr. Foley. No. Our actuaries, as I said, have modeled this and they come up with a modest savings. This is an incremental change to the program. Mr. Issa. I appreciate it is an incremental change, but I do believe that Delegate Norton is right that we have to be very cautious about--I have no problem with the regions, I really don't, but I think it has to be numbers-based. Another area is although you call for domestic partner benefits, and I share with you that the Government has to be competitive with the private sector, and if that includes those benefits, so be it. Now, you are limiting it to gay couples only, same sex couples; you are not allowing domestic partner benefits for heterosexual couples, which makes the score smaller, but it doesn't make you equal to the private sector, does it? In other words, the private sector is recognizing a domestic benefit of either gender, very often. So you are only doing part of it there, is that correct? Mr. Foley. No, that is not correct. The President's budget reflects the inclusion of opposite sex and same sex couples. Mr. Issa. Okay. Then the $240 million previous CBO would be dwarfed; you would probably in the multi-billion dollars per year, isn't that true? Mr. Foley. It is approximately $600 million over 10 years to add that benefit. Mr. Issa. I hear you. I find that is believable as the estimates what Obama Care was going to cost. So it is now doubled what was estimated. You also want to give these benefits to retirees, isn't that true, in other words, add it to their entitlement? Mr. Foley. To new retirees, yes. Mr. Issa. To new retirees. Not to anyone retired as of today? Mr. Foley. That is the way we have modeled the benefit. Mr. Issa. Okay. I want to make sure that was scored that way, because we all understand that the incentive to recruit and retain a workforce has nothing to do with those already retired. I would quickly like to go a couple more items. Obama Care included a rather esoteric provision, which is the men and women on this dais, the men and women behind there are currently going to lose their participation in the Federal Employee Health Care Benefit as of the end of this year, right? Mr. Foley. We are in the process of writing regulations in response to the law. I can't comment, or it would be inappropriate for me to comment. Mr. Issa. Oh, no, it is very appropriate and you will comment, if you don't mind. It is important not that you issue an opinion on the law at this point, although we have had discussions between OPM on what it might mean or not mean. Is there any economic benefit to pulling us out and putting us into exchanges not yet formed from an administrative overhead? In other words, somebody still has to administer these people going into Maryland, D.C., and Virginia plans, and some Pennsylvania; us going into plans in all 50 States in the Union, and our district offices going into plans in all 50 States in the Union, which would be regional exchanges. Is there any benefit to that administratively, or is that a burdenous cost, by definition, to have a few thousand people pulled out of the plan and then administered all over the Country, to the Federal Government, who has to absorb this overhead? Mr. Foley. I am not prepared to comment on that. Mr. Issa. I would request that you go back and have OPM comment on it, because the Speaker just went through sequestration; everyone went through an 8 to 10 percent cut, depending upon which part of the budgets they were cutting. The fact is the administrative costs would have to be borne within legislative or executive costs. Mr. Chairman, I would ask to have just an additional one minute. Mr. Farenthold. Without objection. Mr. Issa. Thank you. Again, I said I want to be with you, and I really do. The proposal itself inherently is good. Let's open up the process. Let's recognize that artificial historic definitions need to be gone. I do believe that although I am willing to support a law change that would create a regional opportunity, and certainly a law change that would create a greater opportunity for nationals to come in, I believe that, as you go back today with the proposals from us, that you need to answer the question of are you willing to go through a process that says you can only do any of these if there is a finding scored by CBO or found by GAO to be an actual savings. In other words, let's not agree to a change that you then go through and based on a prediction that may not be true. Are you willing to take that back today to the Administration? Because I want to work with you. I want to open up and change very aggressively the law, but only to the extent that Ms. Norton and I can come to an agreement that we have been prudent in making sure that the proof is in the pudding before we begin significant changes with incumbent carriers. Mr. Foley. We are asking for the authority to contract with regional plan types. We wouldn't do that if it weren't in the best interest of the program. So we are approaching this in a very deliberate and incremental way. And as I described earlier, we would go through all the normal processes in terms of vetting the proposal and the insurers. Mr. Issa. Mr. Foley, I am exceeding even my borrowed time. History has been please trust us, we will be prudent. The history in this committee is that ain't so. So in rewriting the law to give that kind of authority, I must admit if the Administration, Vice President and the President, want to have, and obviously OPM, want to have our buy-in, and you will have it, it is going to have to be based not on we give you the authority, trust us, but based on a much more limited, perhaps a pilot program, certainly a bidding process that is open to review and independent third party. I must admit that today, discovering that Obama Care is going to cost us double, discovering that most States don't want to form exchanges, and that, contrary to the law as passed, we are going to be subsidizing non-State exchanges, which was clearly prohibited in the law, that puts us in a situation in which we cannot deal with 8 million Americans, current and retired, in a way that would endanger the cost and benefit to those individuals. So I opened with I want to be with you. I strongly want to be with you. I believe in competition. I share with Delegate Norton and Mr. Walberg and others, the chairman, that we want to be with you, but we want to work on this not from a budget proposal, but from a change in law proposal, and I look forward to doing that. Mr. Chairman, ranking member, I appreciate the excessive indulgence. I yield back. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you very much. We now have the member of the full committee, Mr. Connolly, who is requesting to participate. Without objection, I will allow Mr. Connolly to participate and recognize him for five minutes. Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, before my five minutes, I just want to thank you for your graciousness. Because of the limitation of the space on the subcommittee, I could not join the subcommittee. I was on it last year. But I do represent the third largest number of Federal employees, so I have a direct and vital interest in the subject, and I thank you so much. Mr. Farenthold. You are welcome. Any time. Mr. Connolly. As well as the chairman of the full committee and, of course, my friend and ranking member, Eleanor Holmes Norton. And I would ask my five minutes start over. That was all gracious, thank you. [Laughter.] Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, could you give him an extra minute or two to say thank you, but we will start over? Mr. Connolly. I thank my colleague. I wanted, Mr. Foley, to focus on a proposal that came out of the postmaster general, which was to pull the Postal Service employees out of FEHBP. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to insert in the record the testimony of Walt Francis before this committee last year to refresh our memories as to his analysis of the consequences of such an action. Mr. Farenthold. Without objection. Mr. Connolly. Without objection. I thank the chair. Mr. Foley, have you all looked at the possible ramifications of such a move? Mr. Foley. Yes, we have, and we have discussed with the Postal Service their proposals. Essentially, the proposal to pull out postal employees and retirees would amount to about a quarter of the population that is in the program right now. We believe, in aggregate, for the program as a whole, it doesn't have a very significant price impact in the sense of disrupting the market; however, on an individual plan basis it has a very significant impact, looking at the 23 plans that have 50 percent or more of their enrollees that are postal employees, retirees. That would have a significant impact on several of those plans. So overall, as I said, the impact is not great, but there are also unintended consequences. Mr. Connolly. Well, you say it is not great. We had testimony when we had that hearing that, in aggregate, to maintain current benefits with the diminished pool, short pool of remaining Federal employees could cost $1 billion more annually. Does that ring a bell with you? Mr. Foley. I don't recall a specific figure. Mr. Connolly. I would ask, then, that you get back to us for the record as to whether your analysis concurs with that. It also said cost for retirees could rise rather substantially for a retired couple. Mr. Foley. Right. And that really is dependent on the plan that they are in, as I mentioned. Mr. Connolly. On the plan. Mr. Foley. Certain plans are very affected by this change and some, quite frankly, wouldn't stay in business, I don't think, and some would experience increases; and it really depends on the mix of enrollees. Mr. Connolly. In fact, we also had some testimony that some widows, for example, might not be covered by Medicare, given the employment of their spouse, and they would have to find a way to try to compensate for that if the Postal Service were to pull out of FEHBP. There is also, is there not, a question of viability of some of the existing postal plans? For example, the mail handlers standard plan has 150,000 participants, only 10,000 of whom are postal employees. So if you were to separate the two, in theory, that plan could go away because it is not viable with a risk pool of 10,000 remaining. Would that be a fair statement? Mr. Foley. Well, if those employees were pulled out and part of a postal plan of whatever formation that would be, the remainder in the FEHB may or may no be a viable plan option. I guess our concern is much greater about the plans that have a much higher concentration of postal employees and retirees. Mr. Connolly. I just think we have to pay attention to this proposal and we have to, without emotion, without bias, hopefully, we need honest analytical work. What are the consequences both for the postal employees who are being pulled out and for the remaining FEHB programs? Ms. Norton was correctly citing some concerns she has about competitiveness and entry and the number of options available. I want to know, and I am sure my colleagues do, could this precipitative move in fact have an unintended consequence of actually killing some options for all employees, maybe with the best of intentions? And the other thing I am really interested in is, at the end of the day, net, does it in fact save money. My final point, Mr. Chairman, I was so glad to hear of the concern of the chairman of the full committee about members of Congress and their staff being pulled out of the FEHBP, and the fact that that actually could have attendant unforeseen administrative costs, and I certainly agree with him and would remind him that that was a Republican amendment to Obama Care in the Senate led by Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. I just want to get that in the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Farenthold. Thank you. At long last it is my turn to ask some questions. I will probably go down in history as one of the most generous chairman with time. Mr. Connolly. You have my vote. Mr. Farenthold. So I am going to start out with Mr. Foley. Mr. Foley, I think we can kind of summarize your proposals in three big areas that we are talking about right now: that is, opening up the program to more regionalized care to increase competition; you guys taking over and doing prescription drugs in-house; and then, finally, adding in some alternative coverages, be it the ``plus one'' coverage, as well as some incentives for wellness. We are going to kind of focus on those issues broadly. My first question, let's talk a little bit about the regions. It has been mentioned that cherry-picking, I understand in the much less stressful environment of South Texas than Washington, D.C., we would probably get some lower rates. The chairman pointed out we really don't have a firm score on doing that yet, is that correct? Mr. Foley. We have estimated that the expanding the plan types would save approximately $240 million over 10 years. Mr. Farenthold. I am going to go to Mr. Breskin, who has the vast majority. You think that number is reasonable and will hold? Mr. Breskin. I don't, and I think it doesn't take into account what we have described as the phenomena that will likely occur. Of course, the Avalere study indicated it would be more like $6 billion increase over the 10-year period. Mr. Farenthold. All right. I would imagine Mr. Choate is going to have a different opinion of that as well. Mr. Choate. Historically, obviously, as we have seen competition increase, we are not endorsing one specific type of plan designed to be added; we are simply asking for OPM to have the capability of being able to offer local, national, regional, any type of plan that any commercial market would be able to offer today, and at their discretion be able to offer those. Mr. Farenthold. Okay. Let's get back to Mr. Foley here. So you guys want the power to do your own prescription drug program. Would you cover all prescription drugs, are you guys going to cherry-pick, or how are you going to choose which ones you do or don't cover yourself, and then do you dump the dogs to Mr. Merritt? Mr. Foley. The way we would approach the pharmacy benefit manager option would be that we would first look at it and look at the market and the kinds of bids we get in. We are not entering into this if it is not good value for enrollees and for the program as a whole. We think it is good value; otherwise, we wouldn't propose that we go down this path. Mr. Farenthold. So you are asking us to trust you with no numbers. Mr. Foley. No. We estimate that it would save $1.6 billion in mandatory savings over a 10-year period. Mr. Farenthold. But just to get back to my original question, you all aren't talking about taking over all of them, just the more common drugs that you see the highest use of? Mr. Foley. We would see that we would, pharmacy is a complex market and we would see that we would want to look at specialty drugs, for example, separately and consider whether that makes sense to have as part of a single PBM purchase; and we would want to make sure that the benefit design is consistent with the plans that we have, being able to transmit information in real-time to have as good or better coordination with the medical benefit. Mr. Farenthold. Now, having dealt with Mr. Merritt's group in trying to get some specialty drugs that my doctor wants my wife and myself to be on, I can guarantee you are doing a good job trying to save the Government money. There are an awful lot of hoops that we have to jump through to do that. Would cherry- picking off some of the prescriptions from your program run up your costs significantly? How would it affect your members? Mr. Merritt. Well, it depends. I mean, we don't believe that price controls generally save money, they more shift cost to other programs. And one challenge would be if there is direct negotiation in the form of price controls, that most likely that would probably shift higher costs into the exchange and other programs. When you add 8 million lives into that program, probably the response a manufacturer is going to have are to raise prices across the board. So we see a number of ways you can save money without that, and, as with most employers, there is a lot more you can do to save money as people get more comfortable, in terms of preferred pharmacy networks, more generic utilization, and things like that. Mr. Farenthold. A little bit off the subject, but just something of personal interest to me, having grown up at the soda fountain of my pharmacy, I am really kind of seeing a shift pushing to the big Walgreens, CVSes, and a lot of pressure on those small family-owned pharmacies. What can we do about that, or is that just an inevitable force of the marketplace? Mr. Merritt. Well, some of that is a little bit of an urban myth in the sense that small pharmacies continue to grow; they are very profitable. As you were saying, let's see the score on how much is really going on. The reality is that PBMs are there in the marketplace to save money for consumers and employers and government programs, and some folks would rather we just go away, like it was 20 years ago, but people can't afford to do that. They want better benefits and, frankly, we move a lot of business to the most efficient drugstores, those who offer the best prices, and certainly those in rural areas where there aren't many options have a lot of negotiating power and do very well. Mr. Farenthold. All right. Ms. Norton, I gave everybody else a little bit of time. Would you object to me taking another minute and a half? Ms. Norton. Unanimously. Mr. Farenthold. All right, thank you. I wanted to get to Ms. Simon for a minute. Now, you haven't gotten a lot of questions, but you raised some real concerns on the part of the Government workforce. You pointed out that there might be a problem with bringing in a wellness program, and to me that just seems counterintuitive. Why would you not want to have incentives for the workers that you represent to, for instance, quit smoking? Ms. Simon. Well, part of the Affordable Care Act already provides coverage for smoking cessation; it was a requirement. But we, of course, want every incentive for Federal employees to be able to pursue wellness. What we don't want is price discrimination against those who have the misfortune of being ill or obese. Mr. Farenthold. Well, isn't there a difference between the misfortune of being ill and choosing to smoke? I have the misfortune of being overweight. I might be subject to one of those. Ms. Simon. Well, in my written testimony I suggest an alternative, which is what AFGE does as an employer. Mr. Farenthold. Incentive? Ms. Simon. It doesn't penalize those who have an illness or who are older but provides money for fitness classes and gym membership, and that sort of thing. Mr. Farenthold. And you also expressed a little bit of concern about a ``plus one'' program. To me, this seems like since the employees pick up a share of their health care, giving those married couples, or in this case we are even talking about expanding it into same sex couples of opposite sex domestic partners. To me, this seems like a cost savings for some of your members that mirrors what is almost universally done in the private sector. Ms. Simon. Well, thank you for bringing that up, Chairman Farenthold. Here is the awkward thing, and this hearing has felt rather gratifying to me because I am listening to the members of the subcommittee ask all the same questions we have been trying to ask of OPM, and we haven't been able to get any answers beyond trust us, either. For many, many years, as long as I have been involved with advocating for Federal employees regarding FEHBP, OPM's actuaries have told us that ``self plus one'' would be actually more expensive than a family, families of more than two persons. And now, suddenly, we are getting different numbers, but we are only getting the bottom line, and we have not been able to see what kinds of assumptions OPM has used in its calculations for saying this will cost this or this will cost that; this will save this amount of money. We really do want to know exactly how they arrived at their estimates for changes in premiums to family coverage, what the premiums would be for ``self plus one,'' and we have been denied that information. We can't really say, one way or another, whether this would be good, who would be the winners and who would be the losers, until we see how those numbers were constructed. Mr. Farenthold. All right. Well, thank you very much. Did anybody on this side have any additional questions? Ms. Norton. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, first, there are a couple questions from Representative Danny Davis that he would like answered for the record. That is number one. Mr. Farenthold. And he will get this into the record. We will send this to you guys, and if you would respond in writing, it would be greatly appreciated. Ms. Norton. And I wonder if Mr. Foley would respond in writing as well to the suggestion of Ms. Simon for the AFGE based on what the Federal Government does in other areas. Apparently in the thrift savings bond area we have a thrift advisory council. Even with salaries we have a federal salary council. Mr. Foley, what bothers me most about your proposal is that there is no constituent. Those who use the plan apparently have not had an opportunity to look at it and to advise you on it. Now, their views are not determinative, but they are part of the market. I would like to have Mr. Foley respond to the chairman on whether he believes that the model from these other areas would also perhaps advise an employee advisory council for this area as well. Mr. Farenthold. And I will just speak from personal experience in listening to folks, in our case it is constituents, but in your case it would be customers, is always a valuable experience. I would join with Ms. Norton in encouraging you to take a look at that. Ms. Norton. And one more thing for the record. Mr. Foley indicated what the savings would be for the negotiations for pharmaceuticals. I think he said $1.6 billion over a 10-year period. But he never gave us what the savings would be if we went to the larger plan with regional plans he is proposing. So I would ask that you provide for the chairman what the marginal savings, I believe that is your word, would be if we switched to the plan that OPM is recommending today. Mr. Farenthold. All right, with that, I would like to thank the witnesses and the members of the panel for participating today. The subcommittee will stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] APPENDIX ---------- Material Submitted for the Hearing Record [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]