HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaachb0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCUMENT RESUME
02264 - [A1332321] acted)
Changes to the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Prugram
Are Needed. FPCD-77-19; B-125004. May 6, 1977. 61 pp.
Report to Rep. Robert N. C. Nix, Chairmap-, House Committee on
Post Office and Civil Service; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptroller
General.
Issue Area: Personnel Fanagement and Compensation: Compensation
(305).
Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div.
Budget Function: Income Security: Federal Employee Retirement
and Disability 1602).
Organization Concerned: Civil Serqice Commission.
Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service.
Authority: Federal Employees Comptinsation Act. P.L. 90-206.
A comparative analysis was made of life insurance and
other death benefit programs available to Federal employees and
retirees with similar programs in the rion-Federal sector.
Findings/Conclusions: Death benefits for Federal Emplcyees are
ivailable from several soarces, including the Federal Employees'
Group Life Insurance Program, varicus retirement programs, and
workers' compensdtion. As a package, these are generally
comparable with benefits provided by larger non-Federal
employers? hove,;qr, benefits are less for younger employees and
retizees over age 65. Federal employees also pay more for their
benefits than do their non-Federal counterparts.
Recommendations: Changes should be made to the method of funding
and the benefit structure of the Federal life insurance program
to make coverage attractive and equitable. The Congress should
reevaluate the funding requirements and should consider making
basic changes to the structure of the prograL. Possible changes
whi-h should be considered include: prefund only those
liabilities arising from benefits payable to retired employees;
revise present legislation to proviOa that the Government pay
the interest on the program's unfunded liability if the present
funding method is retained; use Government contribution as
paymeLt in full for a portion of the coverage for all employees;
continue premium payments to age 65 rather than terminating at
retirement; and provide greater amounts of optional insurance
coverage to employees. (Author/SC)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaachb0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)