Dead Letter Box: A union advocate’s plea for more reliable notifications to fed retirees

In December 2021, a fed who had long since retired from full-time employment with the Army and Air force Exchange Service received a horrible shock. According to a piece of first-class mail he plucked from his mailbox—sent by his insurer and curiously dated months earlier (in October)—he no longer had health insurance coverage. 

“On Jan. 1, 2022,” the very late letter read, “the Department of Defense NAF (non-appropriated funds) medical and pharmacy benefit plan for retirees 65 and older will be replaced with the Medicare Advantage and Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan. Information on this new plan was mailed out on Oct. 15, 2021, and you will receive three more mailings with details on the new benefit program.” 

“You must be enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B once you reach age 65 in order to enroll in the new MAPD plan,” the letter warns. “Our records show you either are not currently enrolled in Part B, or we don’t have your Medicare number on file.” 

The retiree, Richard Alonzo of Marina, Calif., was floored. He had retired two decades earlier, in August 2000, and he hadn’t effected the last part of the letter—enrolling in Medicare Part B—because he had never received notification to make this monumental change to his health coverage. 

Alonzo was understandably very upset. He says, in fact, that he never received a single mailed heads up from his insurer, nevermind any of the three subsequently promised letters containing “details” of a new program. Alonzo, thinking it was all a mistake, replied saying so, and assumed that would cure the problem.

“It’s ridiculous. In April 2022, Mr. Alonzo’s wife got a prescription filled, but was told out of the blue, at the pharmacy, that the couple no longer was insured under their AAFES retiree plan,” Dennis Hickman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 1263, who is advocating for them, told Government Executive. After the April reveal, they kept trying with the insurer but was told, "no way." The insurer refused to budge, offering a duplicate copy of a letter the company claimed was mailed Oct. 27, 2021, notifying them of the impending change. 

Alonzo told Hickman that in recent months he was able to cure the problem the only way he knew how: by enrolling in regular Medicare Parts A and B at the first permitted enrollment period in January 2023. But, for a significant period of time, he and his wife lacked health coverage at all.

“This couple was not covered for a very long period,” Hickman said. “And even though they complied by satisfying the Medicare enrollment requirements, they were never allowed to be reinstated in the AAFES plan—they had to go with totally new insurance months later,” Hickman said. “Ironically, Mr. Alonzo reminded me recently that he is still a part-time employee at the local AAFES exchange. But they still wouldn’t grant a waiver to permit reinstatement.” 

“In October 2021, at the age of 79, the company says they sent this letter—but he never actually received it,” Hickman continued. “That’s first of all, because he’s very clear that the letter didn’t come. But, my point is, once you are in your 70s most people are not as sharp about such details anyway!” 

“I believe this kind of thing—misdirected or lost very crucial pieces of mail about health insurance and benefits—happens to older feds and retirees more than just occasionally. Because most are not expecting it—after 20-plus years of retirement and steady going, you’re just not expecting such drastic changes in coverage requirements.” 

“You would think companies and administrators could send at least one certified letter for something this important,” Hickman said. “At the age of 79, any retired fed is owed that.” 

NARFE: Debunking retirement myths webinar 

In mid-July, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association is offering a particularly useful webinar for many feds, entitled “Debunking Federal Retirement Myths.” 

“Many current and retired civil servants wrongly assume that it’s impossible to fully understand their federal benefits, let alone select the best options for their situations,” NARFE states. “To help you better plan for your future, NARFE federal benefits experts Tammy Flanagan (who writes our weekly Retirement Planning column) and Mark Keen will highlight some of the common myths and misconceptions around the federal retirement process.” 

The webinar, sponsored by BlueCross BlueShield Federal Employee Program, will take place July 19 at 2 p.m. E.T. Check the NARFE website for registration details. 

A fluke in the calendar will add to the number of hours you can bank this year 

We could all use some extra time off, right? Well folks, in a truly bureaucratic way, most of us will be getting it. 

“For most employees, the 2023 leave year began on Jan. 1, 2023, and will end on

January 13, 2024,” the Office of Personnel Management states in a June 26 memo. “For these employees, leave year 2023 will have 27 pay periods for leave accrual purposes.” 

That is to say, for most employees there will be 27 rather than the usual 26 pay periods. And one extra pay period means one extra accrual of leave time. That’s 4, 6 or even 8 extra hours of time off you can use or bank, depending on your accrual rate. 

As the memo notes, each leave year starts on the “first day of the first full biweekly pay period in a calendar year, and ends on the day immediately before the first day of the first full biweekly pay period in the following calendar year.” Due to a fluke of the calendar, then, this means 2023’s pay periods run later than usual into the following year.