```

[House Report 106-779]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-779

======================================================================

 
    FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS CHILDREN'S EQUITY ACT OF 2000

                                _______
                                

 July 24, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

    Mr. Burton of Indiana, from the Committee on Government Reform, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 2842]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Government Reform, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 2842) to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States 
Code, concerning the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) 
Program, to enable the Federal Government to enroll an employee 
and his or her family in the FEHB Program when a State court 
orders the employee to provide health insurance coverage for a 
child of the employee but the employee fails to provide the 
coverage, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Summary of Legislation...........................................2
 II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................3
III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions.......................3
 IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony.........................3
  V. Explanation of the Bill..........................................3
 VI. Compliance With Rule XI..........................................4
VII. Budget Analysis and Projections..................................4
VIII.Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.................4

 IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for This Legislation...........9
  X. Committee Recommendation.........................................9
 XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1...............9
XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4, Section 423......9
XIII.Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b)......9

XIV. Changes in Existing Law..........................................9

  The amendments are as follows:
  Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Children's Equity Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CHILDREN.

  Section 8905 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following:
  ``(h)(1) An unenrolled employee who is required by a court or 
administrative order to provide health insurance coverage for a child 
who meets the requirements of section 8901(5) may enroll for self and 
family coverage in a health benefits plan under this chapter. If such 
employee fails to enroll for self and family coverage in a health 
benefits plan that provides full benefits and services in the location 
in which the child resides, and the employee does not provide 
documentation showing that such coverage has been provided through 
other health insurance, the employing agency shall enroll the employee 
in a self and family enrollment in the option which provides the lower 
level of coverage under the Service Benefit Plan.
  ``(2) An employee who is enrolled as an individual in a health 
benefits plan under this chapter and who is required by a court or 
administrative order to provide health insurance coverage for a child 
who meets the requirements of section 8901(5) may change to a self and 
family enrollment in the same or another health benefits plan under 
this chapter. If such employee fails to change to a self and family 
enrollment and the employee does not provide documentation showing that 
such coverage has been provided through other health insurance, the 
employing agency shall change the enrollment of the employee to a self 
and family enrollment in the plan in which the employee is enrolled if 
that plan provides full benefits and services in the location where the 
child resides. If the plan in which the employee is enrolled does not 
provide full benefits and services in the location in which the child 
resides, or, if the employee fails to change to a self and family 
enrollment in a plan that provides full benefits and services in the 
location where the child resides, the employing agency shall change the 
coverage of the employee to a self and family enrollment in the option 
which provides the lower level of coverage under the Service Benefits 
Plan.
  ``(3) The employee may not discontinue the self and family enrollment 
in a plan that provides full benefits and services in the location in 
which the child resides for so long as the court or administrative 
order remains in effect and the child continues to meet the 
requirements of section 8901(5), unless the employee provides 
documentation showing that such coverage has been provided through 
other health insurance.''.

SEC. 3. ANNUITY SUPPLEMENT.

  (a) In General.--Section 8421a(b) of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
          ``(5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (4), the 
        reduction required by subsection (a) shall be effective with 
        respect to the annuity supplement payable for each month in the 
        12-month period beginning on the first day of the seventh month 
        after the end of the calendar year in which the excess earnings 
        were earned.''.
  (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
with respect to reductions required to be made in calendar years 
beginning after the date of enactment of this Act.

    Amend the title so as to read:

    A bill to amend chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code, 
concerning the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program, to 
enable the Federal Government to enroll an employee and his or her 
family in the FEHB Program when a State court orders the employee to 
provide health insurance coverage for a child of the employee but the 
employee fails to provide the coverage, and for other purposes.

                    I. Short Summary of Legislation

    H.R. 2842 enables the Federal Government to enroll an 
employee in a ``self and family'' plan in the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits Program when a State court orders the employee 
to provide health insurance coverage for a child of the 
employee but the employee fails to provide the coverage.

              II. Background and Need for the Legislation

    The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 required each State 
to pass a law requiring an employer to enroll a child in an 
employee's group health plan when a court orders the employee 
to provide health insurance coverage for the child but the 
employee fails to provide the coverage. The FEHBP law provides 
that a Federal employee ``may enroll'' in an FEHBP plan 
``either as an individual or for self and family'' coverage. 
The law does not allow an employing agency to elect coverage on 
the employee's behalf. Further, the FEHBP law generally 
preempts State law with regard to coverage and benefits. 
Therefore, a Federal agency currently is unable to ensure that 
a child is covered in accordance with a court or administrative 
order even though the same order would ensure coverage for the 
child if the child's parent were employed by an employer other 
than the Federal government.
    H.R. 2842 provides Federal agencies the authority to enroll 
an employee in family coverage, if such action is necessary to 
enforce compliance with a court order requiring the employee to 
provide health insurance coverage for a child.

            III. Legislative Hearings and Committee Actions

    The Committee held no legislative hearings on H.R. 2842. 
Rep. Elijah Cummings introduced this measure on March 13, 1999. 
It was referred to the Committee on Government Reform. The 
Committee on Government Reform's Civil Service Subcommittee 
marked up the bill on March 22, 2000. By voice vote, the 
Subcommittee approved an amendment offered by Mr. Cummings to 
offset the costs of the legislation. The Subcommittee approved 
the bill as amended and forwarded it to the Committee on 
Government Reform by voice vote.
    On March 30, 2000, the Committee on Government Reform 
marked up the bill. The Committee adopted H.R. 2842, as 
amended, and ordered it favorably reported to the House of 
Representatives.

              IV. Committee Hearings and Written Testimony

    The Committee held no hearings.

       V. Explanation of the Bill as Reported: Section-by-Section

Section 1

    Section one provides the bill's short title, the ``Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 1999.''

Section 2

    Section two amends 5 U.S.C. 8905 by adding a new subsection 
(f) to allow an employee who is not enrolled in an FEHBP plan 
to enroll in a plan for self and family coverage if the 
employee is required by a court order or an administrative 
order to provide health insurance coverage for a child who 
meets the definition of ``member of family'' under 5 U.S.C. 
8901(5). Moreover, if such an employee fails to enroll and 
cannot show that the child is covered by other health 
insurance, this amendment would require the employing agency to 
enroll the employee for self and family under the low-option 
Service Benefit Plan (currently Blue Cross/Blue Shield).
    The new subsection (f) also prescribes similar treatment 
for a similarly situated employee who is enrolled as an 
individual in an FEHB plan. The amendment would ensure that, 
under the circumstances described in the preceding paragraph, 
the employee's enrollment would be changed to a self and family 
enrollment that would cover the child. An employee who did not 
so change his or her enrollment voluntarily would be enrolled 
for self and family in the same plan in which the employee was 
already covered as an individual, unless that plan does not 
provide full benefits and services where the child resides. In 
the latter event, the employee would be enrolled for self and 
family under the low-option Service Benefit Plan.
    Finally, the new subsection (f) of title 5 would bar the 
employee from discontinuing the self and family enrollment as 
long as the order remains in effect and the child continues to 
meet the definition in section 8901(5), unless the employee can 
show that the child has other health insurance.

Section 3

    Section 3 amends section 8412a(b) of title 5 with respect 
to FERS annuitants who retire before age 62 and who receive a 
special annuity supplement. The supplement must be reduced by 
$1 for every $2 of earning that exceed a minimum level 
established by the Social Security Administration.
    The section delays the adjustment of the annuity supplement 
until July 1, to allow annuitants and OPM time to gather and 
process the necessary information. This section does not 
deprive any annuitant of a benefit. It simply ensures that the 
correct level of benefits is being paid.

                      VI. Compliance With Rule XI

    Pursuant to rule XI, clause 2(l)(3)(A) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, under the authority of rule X, clause 
2(b)(1) and clause 3(f), the results and findings from 
Committee oversight activities are incorporated in the bill and 
this report.

                  VII. Budget Analysis and Projections

    The budget analysis and projections required by section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are contained in 
the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.

         VIII. Cost Estimate of the Congressional Budget Office

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 16, 2000.
Hon. Dan Burton,
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2842, the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 2000.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Charles L. 
Betley.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

               congressional budget office cost estimate

H.R. 2842--Federal Employees Health Benefits Children's Equity Act of 
        2000

    Summary: Under current law, the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits program (FEHB) has no authority to enforce compliance 
with a child support order to provide health insurance for an 
employee's children. H.R. 2842 would authorize the mandatory 
enrollment into family plan coverage and the deduction of 
premium contributions from the salaries of such employees who 
otherwise would not participate in FEHB or employees who elect 
self-only coverage, unless the employee provides documentation 
that insurance is provided from another source or the support 
order has ended.
    Because the federal government contributes larger amounts 
to the premiums for employees with family coverage, the bill 
would increase discretionary costs of benefits for federal 
employees by about $3 million in 2001 and $56 million over the 
2001-2005 period.
    Government contributions to FEHB for federal retirees are 
considered mandatory spending. Because some employees would 
retire while still subject to support orders, H.R. 2842 would 
increase the FEHB costs of annuitants and therefore would be 
subject to pay-as-you-go procedures. However, the mandatory 
costs in FEHB would be less than $500,000 in 2001, and would 
sum to about $4 million over the 2001-2005 period. Direct 
spending would increase for the health benefits of postal 
employees and annuitants subject to the bill's provisions, but 
these costs are classified as off-budget and would not be 
subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.
    The bill would also reduce mandatory federal and state 
outlays for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program (SCHIP) because some children with parents who are not 
complying with medical support orders would end up on those 
programs' rolls, with mandatory federal savings of about $16 
million over the 2001-2005 period. Finally, the bill would 
modify the earnings test that applies to supplemental benefits 
paid by the Federal Employees' Retirement System (FERS), but 
this provision would not have significant budgetary effects 
over the 2001-2005 period.
    The bill includes no governmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform act (UMRA). 
With a greater number of children enrolled in the FEHB program, 
states would realize decreased expenditures in Medicaid and 
SCHIP totaling about $12 million over the 2001-2005 period.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 2842 is shown in the following table. 
The bill would add to discretionary spending by all federal 
agencies for employee health benefits and would affect 
mandatory spending in budget functions 550 (health) and 600 
(income security).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Outlays by fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2001      2002      2003      2004      2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Incremental cost of family coverage under FEHB for more                3         7        12        16        18
 federal employees............................................

                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Postal Service contributions to FEHB..........................         2         4         0         0         0
FEHB payments for retirees....................................     (\1\)     (\1\)         1         1         2
Medicaid and SCHIP............................................        -1        -2        -3        -5        -5
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
      Total changes...........................................     (\1\)         2        -2        -4       -3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.
\2\ In addition to the FEHB, Medicaid, and SCHIP effects, the bill would affect direct spending under the
  Federal Employees' Retirement System, but CBO estimates that those effects would be less than $500,000 a year
  over the 2001-2005 period.

Note: Components may not add to totals because of rounding.

                           basis of estimate

    CBO's estimate of the federal costs of H.R. 2842 is based 
on assumptions about the number of employees who would be 
required to obtain family coverage who do not already do so, 
and the federal share of the change in spending by plans 
participating in FEHB for newly covered employees and children. 
In addition, CBO estimated savings for Medicaid and SCHIP based 
on assumptions about the number of children who would be 
covered by those programs under current law, but who would be 
covered by FEHB under the bill. Finally, the estimate of 
savings from the FERS annuity supplement policy change is based 
on the number of FERS retirees subject to the earnings test and 
the increased recoveries that can be expected from applying the 
tests over a longer period.

Spending subject to appropriation

    H.R. 2842 would increase the number of federal employees 
who obtain FEHB family coverage because they are required to do 
so by a child support order by an estimated 11,500 workers. 
Data from the Census Bureau (Current Population Survey, April 
1996 supplement) indicates that about 1 percent of the 
population, ages 18 through 64, fails to comply with a medical 
support order. Assuming that the rate of noncompliance among 
federal employees is similar to the national rate, after 
adjusting for the different age distribution of federal 
workers, CBO estimates that about 23,000 federal employees (not 
including postal workers) are not in compliance with a medical 
support order. Because administrative barriers in the child 
support enforcement system limit how many support orders are 
enforced, CBO expects that about half of those federal 
employees would be brought into compliance with medical support 
orders.
    CBO also expects that it would take about four years to 
identify and bring into compliance those 11,500 employees. 
Because federal employment is likely to remain close to current 
levels over the next five years, we assume that newly applied 
medical support orders would be approximately balanced by 
orders that end or by other employee attrition.
    Based on information from the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), CBO estimates that the costs incurred by FEHB 
plans for single-parent families average two-thirds of the cost 
for two-parent families. For the purposes of this estimate, we 
assume that 90 percent of the employees brought into compliance 
with medical support orders under H.R. 2842 have self-only 
coverage under current law. For those employees, the estimated 
increase in federal spending would be about $900 per family 
policy in 2001, which is the difference between the federal 
share of the annual premium for self-only coverage and two-
thirds of the federal share of the premium for family coverage, 
on average. Once expected compliance is fully phased-in (in 
2004), the incremental cost of FEHB coverage for conversion 
from self-only to family coverage would cost about $9 million a 
year in 2001 dollars.
    CBO assumes that the remaining 10 percent of the affected 
employees who would be brought into compliance with medical 
support orders would have no FEHB coverage under current law. 
For those employees, the estimated effect on federal spending 
in 2001 would be about $3,500 per family policy, which is two-
thirds of the federal share of the average annual premium for 
family coverage. The annualized cost of providing family 
coverage for those employees with no FEHB coverage under 
current law would be about $4 million a year in 2001 dollars.
    Assuming that agency appropriations would be increased to 
maintain current levels of staffing and to reflect anticipated 
inflation in the cost of FEHB coverage, CBO estimates that 
implementing H.R. 2842 would increase discretionary spending 
for FEHB by $3 million in 2001 and by $56 million over the 
2001-2005 period.

Direct spending

    Health Care Costs.--Enacting H.R. 2842 would increase costs 
to the U.S. Postal Service by about $2 million in fiscal year 
2001 and $4 million in 2002 because an estimated 6,000 postal 
employees would be subject to medical support orders. By 2003, 
CBO anticipates that the Postal Service would increase postal 
rates and offset such costs. Postal Service spending and 
collections are classified as off-budget and thus the charges 
incurred by H.R. 2842 would not be subject to pay-as-you-go 
procedures.
    A federal employee would be subject to the mandatory family 
enrollment until a support order expires. Some of the 11,500 
employees affected by the bill would be required to cover their 
children after they retire from active federal employment, 
shifting the classification of costs from discretionary to 
mandatory spending. However, there are fewer support orders for 
older employees, and most children covered under such orders 
are likely to be close to reaching adulthood. Based on the rate 
of retirement of federal employees and assumptions about the 
rate of expiration of support orders, CBO estimates that the 
increase in direct spending by FEHB for payments to cover 
affected retirees would be negligible in 2001, but would total 
$4 million over the 2001-2005 period.
    The bill would reduce spending by Medicaid and SCHIP. CBO 
estimates that 15 percent of the 17,500 employees and postal 
workers would have children who would enroll in those programs 
under current law if medical support orders are not enforced. 
(That is slightly lower than the estimated rate for the general 
population, reflecting an assumption that the children of 
federal workers are somewhat less likely to have low-enough 
incomes to qualify for such programs.) CBO estimates the 
Medicaid savings based on the average costs per child, 
multiplied by an average of 1.5 children covered under each 
support order. After accounting for anticipated inflation, the 
estimated federal share of Medicaid savings would be $1 million 
in 2001 and $16 million over the 2001-2005 period.
    Some SCHIP savings also would occur, but CBO estimates that 
such savings would be less than $500,000 annually.
    Modify Earnings Test for FERS and Annuity Supplement.--The 
Federal Employees' Retirement System pays supplemental benefits 
to certain nondisabled retirees until they reach age 62 and 
become eligible for Social Security. These supplemental 
benefits are subject to an earnings test. Individuals with 
earnings that exceed a certain level in a calendar year (about 
$10,000 in 2000) have their supplemental benefits reduced 
during the 12-month period starting on January 1 of the 
following year. H.R. 2842 would make reductions from the 
earning test effective for the 12-month period starting on July 
1 of the following year.
    Under the current earnings test, OPM pays unreduced 
supplemental benefits for the first two or three months of each 
year until it receives the wage information needed to 
administer the earnings test. This inevitably leads to 
overpayments, which OPM does not try to recover. The bill's 
provisions would increase spending on supplemental benefits in 
2001 (a one-time cost of moving the effective date to July 1) 
before yielding savings in later years by eliminating 
overpayments.
    According to OPM, about 700 retires currently have their 
supplemental benefits reduced because of the earnings test. 
(This figure will rise in the future as the number of FERS 
retirees grows.) CBO estimates that the earnings test reduces 
their supplemental benefits by 50 percent--a reduction of about 
$100 per month for current retires. CBO estimates that H.R. 
2842 would increase spending on supplemental benefits by about 
$240,000 in 2001 and reduce spending in later years. Annual 
savings would grow slowly and would reach $1 million in 2010.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and 
Energy Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for 
legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net 
changes in outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures 
are shown in the following table. For the purposes of enforcing 
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the current year, 
the budget year, and the succeeding four years are counted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays.................      0     -1     -2     -3     -4     -3     -4     -4     -4     -4     -4
Changes in receipts................                                 Not Applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 2842 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA. With a greater number of children enrolled in 
the FEHB program, states would realize decreased expenditures 
in Medicaid and SCHIP totaling about $12 million over the 2001-
2005 period.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: FEHB--Charles L. 
Betley, Child Support--Sheila Dacey, Other Costs--Eric Rollins; 
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Leo Lex; and 
Impact on the Private Sector: John Harris.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

       IX. Specific Constitutional Authority for This Legislation

    Clauses 1 and 18 of Article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution grant Congress the power to enact this law.

                      X. Committee Recommendation

    On March 30, 2000, a quorum being present, the Committee 
ordered the bill, as amended, favorably reported.

             Committee on Government Reform--106th Congress

                                Rollcall

    Date: March 30, 2000.
    Final Passage of H.R. 2842, as amended.
    Offered by: Hon. Dan Burton.
    Adopted by voice vote.

    XI. Congressional Accountability Act; Public Law 104-1; Section 
                               102(B)(3)

    H.R. 2842 will apply to all employees who participate in 
the FEHBP, including those on the legislative branch.

    XII. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; Public Law 104-4; Section 423

    H.R. 2842 does not impose any federal mandates on state, 
local, or tribal governments.

   XIII. Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) Section 5(b)

    The Committee finds that H.R. 2842 does not establish or 
authorize establishment of an advisory committee within the 
definition of 5 U.S.C. App., section 5(b).

       XIV. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

PART III--EMPLOYEES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 84--FEDERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SUBCHAPTER II--BASIC ANNUITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 8421a. Reductions on account of earnings from work performed while 
                    entitled to an annuity supplement

  (a)  * * *
  (b) The amount of an individual's excess earnings shall be 
charged to months as follows:
          (1)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (4), the 
        reduction required by subsection (a) shall be effective 
        with respect to the annuity supplement payable for each 
        month in the 12-month period beginning on the first day 
        of the seventh month after the end of the calendar year 
        in which the excess earnings were earned.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER 89--HEALTH INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

Sec. 8905. Election of coverage

  (a)  * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (h)(1) An unenrolled employee who is required by a court or 
administrative order to provide health insurance coverage for a 
child who meets the requirements of section 8901(5) may enroll 
for self and family coverage in a health benefits plan under 
this chapter. If such employee fails to enroll for self and 
family coverage in a health benefits plan that provides full 
benefits and services in the location in which the child 
resides, and the employee does not provide documentation 
showing that such coverage has been provided through other 
health insurance, the employing agency shall enroll the 
employee in a self and family enrollment in the option which 
provides the lower level of coverage under the Service Benefit 
Plan.
  (2) An employee who is enrolled as an individual in a health 
benefits plan under this chapter and who is required by a court 
or administrative order to provide health insurance coverage 
for a child who meets the requirements of section 8901(5) may 
change to a self and family enrollment in the same or another 
health benefits plan under this chapter. If such employee fails 
to change to a self and family enrollment and the employee does 
not provide documentation showing that such coverage has been 
provided through other health insurance, the employing agency 
shall change the enrollment of the employee to a self and 
family enrollment in the plan in which the employee is enrolled 
if that plan provides full benefits and services in the 
location where the child resides. If the plan in which the 
employee is enrolled does not provide full benefits and 
services in the location in which the child resides, or, if the 
employee fails to change to a self and family enrollment in a 
plan that provides full benefits and services in the location 
where the child resides, the employing agency shall change the 
coverage of the employee to a self and family enrollment in the 
option which provides the lower level of coverage under the 
Service Benefits Plan.
  (3) The employee may not discontinue the self and family 
enrollment in a plan that provides full benefits and services 
in the location in which the child resides for so long as the 
court or administrative order remains in effect and the child 
continues to meet the requirements of section 8901(5), unless 
the employee provides documentation showing that such coverage 
has been provided through other health insurance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                

```