Federal GOP advocates for scrutiny of federal employee's disability benefits scheme
The Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), a key program providing benefits to federal employees injured or who develop occupational diseases at work, has come under scrutiny due to concerns over costs, fraud susceptibility, benefit design, and program efficacy.
First established in 1916, FECA operates as a no-fault social compact whereby federal workers give up their right to sue the government for work-related injuries in exchange for simple and generous benefits, making it the exclusive remedy for such cases. However, over the years, concerns have arisen about the program's efficiency and effectiveness.
One area of concern is the program's susceptibility to waste, fraud, and abuse. Reports suggest that many beneficiaries remain on FECA well beyond the time it is reasonable to expect a return to work, with cases including people over age 80 still receiving benefits, including a few over 100 years old.
Additionally, questions have been raised about the program's benefit structure and cost issues. Concerns include the program paying a higher rate to beneficiaries with dependents versus a single rate as in many state programs, raising questions about fairness and cost control.
Another issue is the program's administrative challenges. There have been calls to improve communication accessibility for claimants and medical providers and clarify procedures like requiring a tied third medical opinion when there is disagreement between examiners.
Past reform attempts have struggled due to the unique nature of FECA as a federal-exclusive program and data reflecting its relative efficiency. For instance, congressional hearings have debated proposals to adopt "best practices" from state workers’ compensation programs. However, the Department of Labor's data indicates FECA runs more efficiently and at a lower cost when compared to many state programs, challenging some reform assumptions.
Current bipartisan efforts focus on thorough evaluation via the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to inform potential legislative updates that balance benefit adequacy with fiscal responsibility and fraud prevention. Top Republicans on the House Education and Workforce Committee have requested the GAO to conduct a comprehensive review of the FECA program. This review will assess the program's benefit levels, vulnerability to fraud, cost efficiency, and how effectively it helps employees return to work.
The bipartisan interest reflects ongoing concerns shared across party lines regarding FECA’s sustainability, integrity, and need for modernization after decades without significant change. If the GAO's findings highlight areas for improvement, bipartisan lawmakers may propose reforms aimed at updating outdated procedures, improving access to care, and ensuring injured federal employees can receive the benefits they need without being impeded by the claims process.
In conclusion, the FECA program, while providing crucial protections for federal workers, faces scrutiny over costs, fraud susceptibility, benefit design, and program efficacy. Past reforms have struggled due to the unique nature of FECA as a federal-exclusive program and data reflecting its relative efficiency. Current bipartisan efforts focus on thorough evaluation via GAO to inform potential legislative updates that balance benefit adequacy with fiscal responsibility and fraud prevention.
The federal workforce reimagined by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) review, and potentially updated by bipartisan lawmakers, might address concerns in policy-and-legislation regarding the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). These include the program's vulnerability to fraud, cost efficiency, benefit levels, and effectiveness in helping federal workers return to work.
This thorough evaluation could lead to reforms, modernizing the FECA workforce by updating outdated procedures, improving access to care, and ensuring benefits are provided without undue complications for injured federal employees.
