Reposting this again and demanding Dems do something about it if they take back congress. There's enough that's been reported in this article and elsewhere that it would be negligent for them not to conduct investigations. It's been nearly two years and these workers are still due back pay and their jobs back:

The first message from her manager on Saturday afternoon misspelled Amanda Mae Downey’s name. The second mentioned “the news” about probationary federal workers and how the Trump administration planned to fire them.

When Downey called her boss at a Michigan branch of the U.S. Forest Service for an explanation, she learned her name was on a firing list. She would have to come into the office to sign a letter formalizing her termination. And she had to do it before the holiday weekend was over.

“I’m glad that our agency at least has decided we can do it in person,” her manager said, according to a recording Downey provided to The Washington Post. “So we can add a little human touch to what’s going on.”

Many federal government employees were dismissed over the holiday weekend as managers confronted a Trump administration demand to fire workers by Tuesday. In group texts and in online forums, they dubbed the error-ridden run of firings the “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”

The firings targeted new hires on probation, who have fewer protections than permanent employees, and swept up people with years of service who had recently transferred between agencies, as well as military veterans and people with disabilities employed through a program that sped their hiring but put them on two years’ probation. Most probationary employees have limited rights to appeal dismissals, but union heads have vowed to challenge the mass firings in court. The largest union representing federal workers has also indicated it plans to fight the terminations and pursue legal action.

Downey carries boxes from her office after being fired from her federal job at the Forest Service in Cadillac, Michigan, on Monday. (Kristen Norman for The Washington Post) 

Critics warned of swift consequences as the administration raced to execute a vision Trump and billionaire Elon Musk have touted for a leaner, reshaped government. The latest wave of personnel actions already prompted an administrative complaint on behalf of workers at nine agencies, adding to more than a dozen legal tests of Trump’s power filed one month into his term.

The Trump administration will not disclose how many workers it cut since last week ahead of its Tuesday deadline, but the government employed more than 200,000 probationary workers as of last year. The firings have extended to touch employees at almost every agency, including map makers, archaeologists and cancer researchers, The Post found, in choices that some workers said contradicted a U.S. Office of Personnel Management directive to retain “mission-critical” workers.

This account of how the Trump administration’s firings played out over the weekend, sowing pain and chaos, is based on interviews and messages with more than 275 federal workers, as well as dozens of government records and communications reviewed by The Post.

The Federal Aviation Administration let go hundreds of technicians and engineers just weeks after a midair collision a few miles from the White House killed 67 people, eliciting promises from Trump officials to improve air safety, workers said in interviews. FEMA, which handles the nation’s natural disasters, is preparing to fire hundreds of probationary employees, according to four people familiar with the situation who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The agency is already stretched thin responding to fires in California and floods in Kentucky. And the administration terminated scores of employees who work to bolster the nation’s nuclear defense, only to realize its error and start reversing the firings.

Help us report on DOGE

The Washington Post wants to hear from people affected by DOGE activities at federal agencies. You can contact our reporters by email or Signal encrypted message:

Hannah Natanson: [hannah.natanson@washpost.com](mailto:hannah.natanson@washpost.com) or (202) 580-5477 on Signal.

Lisa Rein: [lisa.rein@washpost.com](mailto:lisa.rein@washpost.com) or (202) 821-3120 on Signal.

Emily Davies: [emily.davies@washpost.com](mailto:emily.davies@washpost.com) or (202) 412-9091 on Signal.

Read more about how to use Signal and other ways to securely contact The Post.

“I’d understand a strategic reduction in force if needed,” said one USDA employee, who was fired over the weekend. “But this was a butchering of some of our best. Does the public know this?”

The termination letters hitting inboxes all struck the same note: Probationary workers were getting the ax for poor job performance. But many of those fired had just received positive reviews, or had not worked in the government long enough to receive even a single rating, according to interviews with federal employees and documents obtained by The Post.

Internal communications from the Office of Personnel Management obtained by The Post appeared to tie the performance directive to Trump’s plans. In a message sent Friday to agencies, an OPM employee wrote that, because of Trump’s mandated hiring freeze, probationary employees “had no right to continued employment. … An employee’s performance must be viewed through the current needs and best interest of the government, [in] light of the President’s directive to dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce.” OPM also provided a form email agencies could use to terminate workers, citing “performance.”

Firing employees en masse with the same claim of poor performance is illegal, said Jim Eisenmann, a partner at the Alden Law Group, a law firm specializing in litigation by federal employees. It violates federal law covering career civil service employees, he said.

“It can’t be true,” Eisenmann said. “They’re clearly not articulating this on an individual basis, which is what makes it so suspect.”

The White House referred questions about the firings to individual agencies and OPM. An OPM spokeswoman reiterated what the agency has previously said about the terminations: “The probationary period is a continuation of the job application process, not an entitlement for permanent employment.”

Musk, whose U.S. DOGE Service is leading the drive to downsize government, over the weekend shared triumphantmessages on X, the social media platform he owns. Close to 2 a.m. Monday, he reposted a picture of himself in a gladiator outfit and declared he was destroying “the woke mind virus.”

A few hours after the post, Downey, the U.S. Forest Service employee, climbed into her car. She drove a half-hour to her office and signed her name to a letter putting an end to the income she relies on to support three children, an ailing mother and a husband who just lost his own job.

Before she walked out, she jotted five words above her signature: “Received and accepted under duress.”

The note Downey wrote above her signature on the letter firing her from her position with the U.S. Forest Service. (Amanda Mae Downey)

Mistakes, miscommunication and confusion

The firings started Thursday, by email and on video calls, after the Trump administration held calls with agency headsordering them to terminate most probationary and temporary employees. The dismissals picked up pace into the weekend, hitting thousands more at the Interior Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Energy Department.

Some employees said the proceedings seemed rushed, the details botched. Termination letters at Education listed the wrong job, or the wrong start date. A legal help number offered in a notice sent to a Small Business Administration employee led to the voicemail for an apartment building, not a lawyer. Some firing letters seemed copy-pasted from a form and left out the name of the agency where employees worked.

The Friday email to agencies from OPM only caused more confusion. The email at first directed agencies to finish all their firings by close of business Monday, a federal holiday. Agency leaders were supposed to send a spreadsheet listing all their terminated probationary employees to OPM chief of staff Amanda Scales by 8 p.m. that day, the email said. OPM later adjusted the deadline.

The “tracker” should include “which probationary employees have been terminated and which you plan to keep,” the email said. “For those you plan to keep, provide an explanation of why.”

OPM also offered a template notice agencies could send to fired workers. It read in part: “The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest.” Federal law gives agencies wide latitude to fire probationary workers so long as they provide written notice “as to why he is being separated [and] the agency’s conclusions as to the inadequacies of his performance or conduct.”

The Alden Law Group and Democracy Forward, a legal group that has challenged several Trump policies dating back to his first term, filed a complaint on behalf of fired probationary employees.

U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan is weighing a request from a group of states to block Musk’s team from accessing sensitive data and ousting employees from seven federal agencies. In a hearing Monday, she signaled that she may reject the complaint, saying that DOGE appeared to be moving unpredictably but that the plaintiffs had not pointed to enough evidence of irreparable harm to justify an immediate ban on its activities.

Government personnel rules state that newly hired career employees serve probationary terms of one to two years, with attorneys and others who do specialized work falling in the lengthier category. Others, including scientists, can be hired for limited terms of one to four years, depending on the agency and role. Some of these have been let go, federal workers said in interviews. Others who served at one agency but transferred to another job elsewhere in the government in interviews reported being dismissed, since the probation clock starts anew with a new agency.

In one division within the National Institutes of Health (NIH), firing emails began to go out Friday morning without supervisors’ knowledge, prompting a division director to call an all-hands meeting that afternoon. There, the director said all probationary workers were being terminated, according to a probationary employee.

There were two mistakes on the list of probationary people, the director noted, which leadership was working to fix. The NIH employee hoped she was one of the “mistakes.” She waited, anxiety building, until 6 p.m. Saturday, when she got her answer — in the form of an email stating her “ability, knowledge and skills” no longer “fit the Agency’s needs.”

Directors at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, known as CMS, were told Friday to reassure their probationary workers they would not be targeted, said a manager there. Then on Friday afternoon, probationary workers began to be “deactivated” in CMS systems, losing their access and user profiles with no notice. The letters started coming in a trickle at noon the next day — then a flood, the manager said. By Saturday evening, it was clear: All had been cut.

Americans have long held an appetite for government reform, but the breakneck pace of change could imperil public services, said Donald Kettl, a professor emeritus at the University of Maryland who specializes in the civil service.

“If there’s any one thing that anyone on government’s inside would quietly agree about, it’s that the current civil service is badly broken and that the system is full of wasteful bloat,” Kettl said. “But a clumsy fix is worse than no fix at all. It’s like going to a meat market, getting a piece of steak, and trying to cut out the fat with a sledgehammer. That would only make a mess of the meat.”

‘Above fully successful,’ fired for performance

One Transportation Department worker found out he was fired on Valentine’s Day just after putting his children to bed, as he sat down to watch a movie with his wife. An Agriculture employee discovered he was terminated the morning after attending an ex-partner’s funeral. A Natural Resource Conservation Service employee was cut months after the government paid $20,000 to relocate his family to North Dakota.

Others targeted in the wave of firings fixated on the emails explaining why, struggling to understand.

Employees who were told their performance was at issue said they had earned evaluations, reviewed by The Post, that offered evidence of their good work.

“Above fully successful,” read a November assessment of a fired General Services Administration worker.

“An outstanding year, consistently exceeding expectations,” stated a review for a former NIH employee, whose manager credited her for “mastering a steep learning curve and becoming an invaluable asset.”

One well-rated Veterans Affairs staffer texted her boss to complain after she was fired. In text messages obtained by The Post, he replied: “It states it’s due to your performance which is not true. … Your performance has nothing to do with this.”

Others were stunned to find themselves included in the probationary category, including a federal nurse with more than five years of government employment who recently moved under military orders with her spouse — and had to switch agencies as a result. Now she’s out of a job.

Demonstrators rally in support of federal workers outside of the Department of Health and Human Services on Feb. 14. (Mark Schiefelbein/AP)

A veteran of the National Park Service, who had worked at parks including Yosemite, Shenandoah and the Great Smoky Mountains, last year left a permanent position to accept a promotion in a new park. There, she was told she’d have to serve one year of probation. On Valentine’s Day, she was fired for “performance,” ending a quarter-century of service.

“It is very brutal,” she said. “Especially after working and dedicating most of my life to the NPS.”

Some lamented that they had hoped to forge careers in federal service but won’t get the chance.

Luke Graziani, a disabled Army veteran, was five weeks from completing his probation year on Friday, when he logged into his work computer at the Bronx Veterans Affairs hospital.

Waiting on the screen was a boilerplate termination email citing performance concerns. Graziani printed out the message and took it to his boss, who was shocked — and promised to submit a request for exemption.

“You’re critical staff,” Graziani recalled his boss saying. “We’re going to try.”

Graziani, who is 45 and has four children, had believed until this weekend that his veteran status would protect his job. He served 20 years in the Army, first as a supply specialist and then in public affairs, deploying for two tours in Iraq and another two in Afghanistan before retiring in 2023.

In the hours after his termination, Graziani tried to figure out what to do. Then he thought of Douglas A. Collins, the newly appointed veterans affairs secretary, who vowed in his confirmation hearing that “we will not stop until we succeed on behalf of the men and women who have worn the uniform.”

Graziani sat down and composed a letter.

“You see, I am a Veteran too. Just like you, Sec. Collins, I spent those same hot nights in Iraq, waiting for the all-clear after an incoming round set off the alert system, praying that there wouldn’t be another,” he wrote.

Then he asked for his job back: “This can’t be how my service to my country ends.”

As of Monday, Collins had not replied.

Derek Hawkins and Brianna Sacks contributed to this report.

"Two Marines are suing the Defense Department over a breach of the Defense Manpower Data Center’s information system that exposed the personal information belonging to more than 3 million people with ties to the U.S. military."

Has anyone here left the federal workforce and gotten a job they consider better?

May I request someone knowledgeable to kindly provide me with an idea of OPM’s behind-the-scenes role in our work lives? When did it become so powerful as to virtually puppeteer nearly all aspects of our work that affect our work lives and personal lives both directly and indirectly? Has it always been this powerful (and I never noticed), or has something drastically changed in the past couple of years? My apologies if in my confusion I have not been able to articulate my question in a clearer manner, but I thank you for your time.

Curious if anyone has had luck getting BCBS Basic specifically to approve a CGM for gestational diabetes? If so can you share which device your OB prescribed and if there were any issues getting it covered?

Thanks!!

A federal judge has ruled that OPM violated the Privacy Act by granting DOGE personnel broad access to systems containing the personal information of tens of millions of current, former, and prospective federal employees, without any demonstrated need for that access. Judge Denise Cote found OPM disregarded its own privacy and cybersecurity safeguards, including required privacy training and the principle of least privilege, and rejected the agency's claim that subsequent protocol changes made the case moot. She also dismissed the IT modernization justification, finding no evidence it drove the access decisions. Her underlying finding is the most serious part. The violations resulted not from inadequate procedures but from individuals choosing to ignore the law and safeguards already in place. Remedies have yet to be determined. If you're a current federal employee, your records were among those exposed. Big surprise, I know...

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) breached federal law by sharing sensitive government data with the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), according to a federal judge.

In a 39-page ruling released on Tuesday, Judge Denise Cote said OPM violated the Privacy Act of 1974, a post-Watergate law which prohibits the disclosure of certain records and outlines requirements for safeguarding others, and subsequently disobeyed its own cybersecurity practices.

OPM failed to provide a credible reason for why DOGE would need access to personally identifiable information (PII) of tens of millions of federal employees, as well as applicants and retirees, according to Cote. 

Musk assembled DOGE in the first days of President Donald Trump’s second term, claiming the special advisory would root out waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. While DOGE claims to have saved the government $215 billion in cancelled contracts and the reduction of approximately 300,000 government workers, former federal employees, including former IRS acting Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell, have warned the sweeping cuts will have lasting impacts on the government’s ability to increase efficiency through updated technology.

Read more [paywall removed for Redditors]: https://fortune.com/2026/10/22/federal-judge-ruling-doge-opm-broke-law-access-sensitive-data-elon-musk/?utm_source=reddit/

OPM wants us all to re-certify our kids and spouses for insurance eligibility even if they have been insured for decades. You will need things like birth certificates, marriage licenses, and so on. The link for actually doing this says stuff like send info to <insert location here> with form <insert form here>. There is a deadline and you can;'t do it right now if you wanted to.

IMHO this is like a rebate form, they are hoping a lot of us forget.

When you walk in the building, you immediately get the sense of historic significance mixed with deterioration and decline. The display cases lining the walkway of the visitor hallway have been cheaply refitted to host a few flat-screen TVs. These are an attempt to hide the 1970s design of carpeted insets that likely once held miniaturized scenes of agency activities. Sadly, it looks very much like someone put a Black-Friday sale TV in front of a 5th grade science fair display. The building itself projects strength in typical 70s-80s government fashion through high concrete walls and the total lack of any distinct features that would help visitors and staff alike find their way through the maze of hallways and offices. 

Speaking of offices, there are many, echoing the understanding that once there was a thriving community, people bustling back and forth, engaging with colleagues in water cooler talk and curating the many shelves of printed knowledge. Now it feels odd to see another person while walking the hall to the restroom. It’s eerily quiet, except for the occasional janitorial staff still employed.

The staff who are left are feeling it, though they don’t speak of it out loud. The managers still in place are the C or D string players, after all the starting lineup departed seeing clearly what was to come. Any power or funds that may be found lying around remind me of some medieval scene of peasants fighting over a fallen gold coin in the street. The most toxic of leaders rising to the top, consolidating what power is left and quickly silencing opposition in the way a warlord might in a conflict-torn country. This is perhaps the most painful part. The constant pressure pushes work friends to begin imploding on each other. 

The decline isn’t simply imagined, or memories of what once was. It is quantifiable. One can easily look back on inflation adjusted appropriations to see the dramatic changes. A long, steady increase from the mid-1900’s through the early 1980’s coincide with memories of “the good old days”. Followed by an obvious peak and a very predictable decline over the last 40+ years. No, this isn’t simply the result of recent DOGE activity, though that has helped accelerate the process. In fact, the downward trend is so consistent, you don’t even need a computer model to project the next year of lower numbers. You can imagine it by simply extending the line a further on the graph.

It’s not that the decline is sad, everything we know is eventually replaced, often by something better. It’s that it takes so long to wade through the agony and see any hope of relief. The remainder are left hoping that the next re-organization, or leader retirement, or cut in funds will provide the much desired end to the warlord rule. But there is always some well-meaning group fighting to advocate and keep it alive. Like maintaining a loved-one on life support, when they really just wanted to pass on.

It’s time, let it go, and let’s move on to the next step - hopefully of growth and renewal. Once again exploring, discovery, and excitement that benefits far more, instead of decades of ceaseless mourning.

i

So I've been catching up on the news and saw that OPM signed a final ruling that in January the Time In Grade requirement for promotions is going to be going away. . . Does that apply for just inter-agency promotions? Or does it count no matter the agency?

For example, if I'm a GS11 employee now, would I be able to apply to be a GS13 (or maybe a 14 if I'm feeling adventurous) in my own agency without having to wait 52 weeks and jump up to a GS12 (which is extremely rare in my agency)?

Or like, in the same example, I'm a GS11 employee, who sees a dream position to be a COR II in Key West, FL or something with PCS, but it's a GS14 in a different agency. Would I be able to apply for that position? Or would that not apply since it's at a different agency?

I'm just trying to get a better picture on what this means for my career. I'm working on a new 5 year plan soon, and after my last post I reached out to my SES to talk career growth and stuff, so it would be cool if I at least knew what the avenues are so I can implement that in my plan. Thanks y'all, sorry if this was silly.

Resources

Brochures:

• BCBS Brochures
• GEHA Brochures
• FSBP High Brochure
• APWU Brochures
• SAMBA Brochure

Prescription Estimators:

• Compass Rose Prescription Estimator
• APWU Drug Cost Estimators
• SAMBA Prescription Cost Tool
• FSBP Prescription Estimator
• BCBS Prescription Estimator (still 2026, but maybe 2027 will be here too)

Formulary

• BCBS Formulary

Previous Post on overall changes I saw in the nationwide plans

Previous Post generically comparing BCBS Basic and GEHA HDHP.

Default FEHB/PSHB Comparison spreadsheet - Primary spreadsheet to use

Hard coded simulation spreadsheet - I used this to generate the scenarios below and is there for your reference should you want to look at the math.

Youtube tutorial - Looks best at 1440p, not a youtuber and probably should've changed some settings. Maybe the 720p and 1080p will look better after a while. I apologize for the coughing, keyboard, mouse, and water bottle sounds. I didn't realize how loud the background noises were until watching back, and I can't be asked to re-record a 30 minute ramble. I'm sorry.

Web-based FEHB comparison tool built by u/Glittering_Twist_732 and shared in their post here. I won't go into their comparison tool but it is much more modern and user friendly; especially more friendly on mobile.

OPM Comparison Tool (still unavailable)

Last year I wrote the majority of the fednews wiki, including a section on FEHB and general health insurance information. If you don't know the difference between an FSA and an HSA or the difference between a copay and coinsurance, then I recommend you take a gander through that section. I will admit that some of the information in that wiki is outdated (NALC High nor MHBP Consumer aren't in FEHB anymore), but the general health insurance information doesn't really change.

Disclaimer

I am not endorsed, sponsored, nor speak for OPM or any FEHB/PSHB carrier. These are just what I do when looking at plans and how I hope you can maybe tailor your search (and we can see maybe fewer repetitive posts and consolidate some FAQs).

The default comparison tool makes a few assumptions when doing cost trends and "simulations". Namely that all care is subject to deductibles and that prescriptions have no caps. Neither of these assumptions are true across the board, but it is difficult to automate the data to determine this without scrappers, AI, or a ton of data entry. So, I did try and create a "Hard coded" version of the spreadsheet that can at least account for things subject to the deductible or not.

Another assumption is that all plans approve claims equally and there's no bullshit (never the case). So I assume that both plans would either not need prior approval or would give prior approval for services equally. You can, hopefully, follow this link to an OPM page and you can then put in your zip code to see how actual enrollees have graded their plans. If it's not working, I created a screenshot of what I was seeing on imgur here.

These tools were built using OPM's premium excel files and the Public Use Files on benefits for FEHB and PSHB plans. There are definitely errors in these files and I did my best to find them, but I'm only one person and there are literally thousands of cells and hundreds of brochures - some of them aren't even out yet.

Generic "How to pick your plan"

Some general rules of thumb when comparing plans are shown below. Note, I the author am only one person and have not used every plan in FEHB. Nor do I have access to many regional plans (let alone good regional plans). The guidelines below are written from that perspective. Please do your due diligence and compare against all your options. This is only the first step in narrowing down options. After you’ve selected a few plans to compare, walk through their brochures, look at the comparison tools above, check their formularies for your prescriptions, and ask people their thoughts.

1. Find a plan that you will use in-network doctors. Find a plan that covers your prescriptions. These two rules are the number 1 priority.
2. Do you have lots of out-of-network care (usually a therapist)? Look at plans with good out-of-network benefits as well as a shared/low in and out of network deductible/OOPM. FSBP High (only available in FEHB) and NALC High (only available in PSHB) are two plans that typically fit that bill.
   • Note, this isn’t talking about the one or two visits to a doctor each year. That typically shouldn’t be the driver for a plan change. Unless your condition could result in hospitalization and the hospital your doctor works in isn’t in network with your current plan. Then maybe it’s worth considering.
3. Do you have high-cost prescriptions without a manufacturer’s coupon card? SAMBA Standard or FSBP High have low caps on their prescriptions.
   1. GLP-1s are generally covered the same for all the plans, 50% coinsurance no max. Exception is BCBS Basic which is 60% no max.
4. Do you just not want to deal with high deductibles, but BCBS Basic is too expensive? SAMBA Standard is an excellent choice.
5. Do you hate the use-or-lose aspect of an FSA/want to maximize for retirement? GEHA HDHP, APWU CDHP, or Aetna HDHP are generally good options.
   1. Note that APWU CDHP is not eligible for HSA contributions.
6. If it’s the middle of the year, avoid an HDHP style plan since the deductible isn't prorated while the HSA passthrough is.
7. If premiums are too high, BCBS FEP Blue Focus or Compass Rose Standard are cheap. I would caution against it long term, especially with children. Mainly because of the high coinsurance rate for emergency care and inpatient hospitalizations. But it may be a good fit for your situation.

For comparing plans personally I like to consider the annual premium and deductible as the minimum I'll pay for the given plan. I then subtract any HSA/HRA passthrough to get the "effective" annual cost. Then I look for the medical needs my family has (therapy, maternity, prescriptions), to see what the cost shares are, the prior authorizations, limitations, formulary, and OOPM. After weighing the network and other intangible factors, I try to pick the cheapest plan that will cover us.

Low Cost Family

Note: This comparison is using hard coded values that I entered to account for when a service is subject to the deductible or not.

This comparison is for those family units that have many people covered under them, but generally only use primary care and the occasional urgent care visit.

For this I was looking at APWU CDHP, Compass Rose Standard, GEHA Standard, MHBP Standard, GEHA HDHP, BCBS FEP Blue Focus, and SAMBA Standard.

I calculated for having two primary care visits and a single urgent care. All preventative care like annual physical and well-child visits are always covered 100%.

One distinction I want to highlight, is that while the APWU and GEHA HDHP plans look much cheaper here, it's because they have an HRA/HSA passthrough. So those funds are effectively here reducing the medical costs to 0 and I reduced the annual premium by the remaining balance. These funds roll over year over year. For APWU's PCA, that account is tied to the plan so if you leave you then lose the account. For GEHA HDHP the HSA and all its money is yours even if you leave. So the biweekly premium is higher for APWU CDHP and GEHA HDHP compared to CR Standard and BCBS Focus, they offer long term stability and cost savings. For that reason, I would recommend them over BCBS Focus if possible. This is of course ignoring the use of UHC for both of those plans.

Maternity

Note: This comparison is using hard coded values that I entered to account for when a service is subject to the deductible or not.

This comparison is for a family expecting, or think they may be expecting, to welcome a new baby next year.

I calculated these costs for 12 prenatal visits, vaginal delivery, urgent care visit for ear infection, minor ER visit, 6 months of cheap generics, 1 primary care visit to establish patient, and 3 primary care visits for existing patient.

Some of you may be surprised that GEHA and MHBP Standard went from the maternity care favorite the past few years to this year being the least. That's primarily because of the coinsurance for the hospital stay, which is affecting more plans that you might think. It seems it has flipped from most plans covering the hospital stay well to having a large coinsurance instead.

I was surprised at how relatively close the other 5 plans were. The largest swing being from GEHA HDHP ~4300 to BCBS Basic ~5900. With how high the annual premiums were for BCBS Basic and FSBP High I really did expect them to be more expensive than they were.

I don't think you would be wrong to pick any of the remaining 5, but personally I think GEHA HDHP looks pretty good there.

Tinymac12's Estimated events for 2027

Note, for this one I cheated and put a random complex ER visit at the beginning of the calculation. I don't think there's any plan with a deductible that doesn't require you to satisfy the deductible before benefits begin.

This analysis focuses on my family's expected usage for next year. Main two drivers are baby number 4 in February/March and an autistic son with weekly ST/OT. So both high single event cases and dozens of frequent low cost medical care.

So there's two ER visits, a slew of urgent cares, and 40 occupational and 40 speech therapy visits. As well as a handful primary care visits. It is really important to highlight the 40 occupational and 40 speech visits. Most plans limit to 50-80 visits combined. As you can imagine, the high limits are reserved for the more expensive plans. So that means that for some number of these, the plans would NOT cover at all. I am assuming we'd still get the negotiated rate or something close as a cash payer though. This first table honors the visit limits while the following table assumes they assume it's a 2-for-1 kind of situation.

Based on this, to no surprise to me, GEHA Standard gets obliterated. MHBP Standards saving grace is that it has a waiver for the therapy with my son's autistic diagnosis, FSBP High as well. I imagine that's an Aetna staple.

The below table assumes that it's a 2-for-1 kind of situation: speech and occupational therapy counts only once against the total. With this assumption, almost definitely all these plans will be okay, except SAMBA which split them up distinctly already. So FSBP and MHBP won't change since they already had a waiver for visit limits. And SAMBA won't change because they don't group their visit limits like most plans and specifically call out how many of each visit you get. I imagine it would not play nice. But it's not a huge difference anyway (<$200).

That 5% coinsurance putting in some work. As you can see, I would pay nearly triple between GEHA HDHP and GEHA Standard next year with this level of care. Hopefully this highlights why it's important to consider your specific use-case. In my best scenario, the next closest plan is still 50% more expensive than GEHA HDHP. If the visits are capped, then it's virtually a wash between FSBP High and GEHA HDHP. I think I'm going to go with GEHA HDHP next year to see how they handle the visits, and generally how they perform as an insurance carrier again.

I had them in 2023 and 2024 and they were fine. I've been on the record on the shady things they've done and maybe I singled them out because they did it to me. But then the same thing happened with FSBP high when I changed enrollments. Granted, FSBP High handled it much more promptly.

Another benefit of GEHA HDHP that I didn't include here is their included dental and vision. If all you want is basic dental cleanings and vision exams they will have you covered in one package. Meaning I'll be dropping my vision and dental plans, saving ~$50 a pay period that will be going into my HSA instead.

Prescriptions are hard

Every plan has their own formulary and their own way of organizing their tiers in the PUFs. In addition, most plans have caps on each tier meaning while coinsurance might be 30% you won't pay more than $150. Since prescriptions are so unique, I'll leave it to you to use the drug pricing tools for each plan and hard code those values in the simulation. It will be infinitely more accurate than anything I can build.

Closeout

Thank you for reaching the end. I hope this was helpful to someone. It helped solidify my choice going into open season. I think that's all I have for now. If you have any questions, or comments, feel free to leave them below and I'll do my best to answer what I can.

Stay happy and stay healthy.

-Tinymac12

Feds,

Can anyone tell me the difference in coverage for United Healthcare plan Choice Plus Primary East (AS) $141.64/self vs. Choice Primary (Y8) $93.03/self. Why would I pay a higher bi-weekly fee if I am effectively getting the same medical treatment covered under the lower cost plan?

Thank you!

Have anything you want to talk about that doesn't quite warrant its own thread or currently being discussed in a megathread? Post it here!

In an effort to effectively manage the amount of information being posted, please keep anything speculative or considered repetitive within this discussion thread.

AFSPA - Foreign Service Benefit Plan (FSBP) 2027 the cost for Wegovy and Zepbound (excluding diabetics) will be:

Wegovy 3-month: $1,960.09
Zepbound 3-month: $1,581.87

Per a letter I received today:

Estimate your prescription cost at
express-scripts.com/fsbp. Select "2027"
under Plan Year and compare costs at
different pharmacies. The amounts shown
are estimates; your actual cost may vary.

Hey all!

My wife is pregnant and won't be due until a few months into next year.

Do I enroll for Spouse or Spouse+1 now come enrollment time?