Posts in category: Uncategorized

Federal employees and retirees should expect to pay much more for health coverage next year: the enrollee share of FEHB premiums is going up 13.5% on average, which is almost double from last year. OPM cites price hikes from providers and suppliers, more prescription drug usage, and behavioral health spending as the principal drivers for this increase.

How will this impact you this Open Season? I’ll walk you through premium changes in popular plans, discuss which ones saw their costs go up above and below the average, provide enrollment advice for two-person families, and discuss what to expect from FEDVIP options.

Recent History of FEHB Premium Increases

The 13.5% increase for 2025 marks the largest in recent memory. Just three years ago, the average enrollee increase was only 3.8%. It’s unclear whether 2025 will be an outlier or a trend, but federal employees and annuitants should prepare to pay more going forward and anticipate large premium increases in the future.

How FEHB Premiums are Changing in 2025

While the average enrollee share of premium is going up, not all plans reflect that trend. For the 144 FEHB plans available in 2024 and 2025, self only premiums will decrease in 28 plans, stay the same in 5 plans, increase below the 13.5% average in 69 plans, and increase above the average in 42 plans.

Some of the changes are striking: the largest decrease in enrollee share of premium is from Presbyterian Health Plan Standard (PS), available in New Mexico, which is 23% lower in 2025, saving self-only enrollees around $732 next year. Carefirst BlueChoice Blue Value Plus (B6), available in the Washington D.C. area, has the same premium in 2025 as 2024. The largest percentage increase is from Health Alliance HMO Standard (K8), available in several states, which is 66% higher in 2025 and will cost self-only enrollees $2,222 more next year.

How is your plan’s premium changing next year? Even if you’re happy with your existing coverage, it will likely be more expensive in 2025. Not all premiums increased at the same rate, and there may be new plan bargains available to you, which is why it’s important to know how this for-sure expense will impact your budget next year.

Blue Cross Blue Shield

About two-thirds of federal employees are enrolled in one of the Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) plans—Basic, FEP Blue Focus, or Standard.

Both Basic and Standard increased above the all-plan average, and while FEP Blue Focus also went up, it was well below the average.

If you’re currently enrolled in a BCBS plan, when was the last time you evaluated the other two options to compare benefit and cost differences? This upcoming Open Season is a good opportunity to assess whether your current plan is still the best fit for your needs. 

There are many differences between Basic, FEP Blue Focus, and Standard, but some of the most significant are that Standard is the only plan where:

• You can see out-of-network providers,
• Receive mail-order prescription drugs (Basic has mail-order prescription drug coverage only for annuitants with Part B),
• Obtain skilled nursing care benefits,
• And receive IVF coverage, up to $25,000 annually.

If you’re enrolled in Standard and don’t use those benefits, you could save some serious money switching to Basic or FEP Blue Focus, and you’ll get to keep your existing BCBS in-network providers. Families switching from Standard to Basic would save $3,147 in premium next year, and families switching from Standard to FEP Blue Focus would save $7,403.

Self-Plus-One vs Self & Family Enrollment

Married couples and two-person families can enroll as self-plus-one or self and family. Most of the time, self-plus-one is the cheaper enrollment choice, but there are 46 FEHB plans where self-&-family enrollment is less expensive than self-plus-one, and 10 plans where the premiums are the same.

There is a sizable amount of money at stake based on your enrollment decision. For example, a two-person family considering the D.C.-area Kaiser High (E3) plan can save $64.23 bi-weekly enrolling as self-&-family compared to self-plus-one. That adds up to $1,670 annually.

OPM has released a chart that shows which plans have lower self and family premiums. Look for the enrollee share of premium and choose the enrollment option that is cheaper. You’ll receive the same plan benefits regardless of enrollment type. 

FEDVIP Premiums

FEDVIP premiums have historically increased at a much lower rate compared to FEHB plans. For 2025, FEDVIP dental plan premiums will increase 2.97% on average, and FEDVIP vision plan premiums will increase by .87%.

The Final Word

Your FEHB premium will most likely go up in 2025, and most likely by quite a lot. The 13.5% increase is only an average, and many plans will cost more. While only one factor in your overall plan selection decision, the premium is important because it’s a for-sure expense. You absolutely must check to see how yours is changing for 2025 and consider whether another plan is a better value for you and your family. The 2025 FEHB Open Season starts Nov.11 and ends Dec. 9.

Kevin Moss is a senior editor with Consumers’ Checkbook. Checkbook’s 2025 Guide to Health Plans for Federal Employees will be available on the first day of Open Season, Nov. 11. Check here to see if your agency provides free access. The Guide is also available for purchase and Government Executive readers can save 20% by entering promo code GOVEXEC at checkout.

Senators Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Mark Warner, D-Va., want the IRS to make it easier for people to go online to get information about refunds, respond to IRS questions and more. The pair have introduced the Improving IRS Customer Service Act to push the agency to make more expansive improvements to such customer service needs.

Warner called the IRS “the source of massive headaches” in a statement, saying that he is “glad to introduce this legislation that will ease some of this frustration by increasing clear communication and making IRS resources more readily available.”

The bill — being touted by the duo now following its introduction last month — includes a requirement for the IRS to set up a dashboard with wait times for phone lines and tax return processing if the agency is dealing with delays.

The proposal also includes some items the IRS says it’s working on already. 

One section in the bill requires the IRS to give taxpayers individualized, specific information about tax return status, including whether the agency has received their return and when taxpayers should expect their refund.

The IRS has a tool dubbed Where’s My Refund already, and providing more details through the tool is listed as a priority in the IRS Strategic Operating Plan for how it will spend the $60 billion it has via the Inflation Reduction Act. The IRS says in that plan that it updated Where’s My Refund in 2024 to provide more details and saw a nearly 30% increase in its use.

The bill also calls for the IRS to make a website or application to let taxpayers view returns and IRS documents or notices online — and upload a response to the tax agency online if needed.

Improving IRS online accounts is a huge priority already as the agency looks to move into the digital age, IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel told Nextgov/FCW previously.

The IRS wants to enable individual taxpayers to do most interactions online, it says in its Strategic Operating Plan. Among the specific efforts: giving taxpayers the ability to view digital copies of most notices and letters, access digital forms and view last year’s tax return forms.

Efforts to improve business and tax professional accounts also feature in the plan. 

The bipartisan bill additionally includes a push for more callback technology for taxpayers when the IRS doesn’t pick up within ten minutes and a requirement that the IRS inform individuals facing economic hardship of collection alternatives. 

The IRS expanded callback options to nearly all phone lines during the 2024 filing season and called back over 4 million callers, it says in its Strategic Operating Plan. 

Continued IRS funding will be critical to maintaining the work started under the IRA, Werfel and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told reporters last month. 

The senators’ press release for the bill includes statements of support from the National Taxpayers Union and American Institute of CPAs.

“It should be easy for taxpayers to get the information they need from the IRS,” Cassidy said in a statement. “We can streamline the process and give Americans the transparency they expect.”

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is celebrating more than 20 years of a “working, living” management directive that has promoted efforts to eliminate and prevent discrimination at federal agencies.  

EEOC issued Management Directive 715 on Oct. 1, 2003, and it superseded previous affirmative action management directives — mandating more extensive data collection. For example, it required agencies to collect information on their permanent and temporary workforces by race, national origin and sex. 

The directive also requires agencies to annually update their EEO policy statements and perform self-assessments to prevent discrimination. 

Agency officials touted the directive in an article published by EEOC as an important tool providing insights in how the federal government can be more effective in uncovering and preventing potential discrimination in its agencies.

“Two decades of data from MD-715 shows that the federal government has increased the diversity of its workforce, particularly at the senior pay level. MD-715 has also made it easier to collect data and identify barriers affecting specific EEO groups in the federal workforce.”

MD-715 was the first new EEOC management directive since 1987. In 2013, EEOC launched an online system that enabled it to collect anti-discrimination data from agencies electronically, making analysis easier. 

Between fiscal years 2003 to 2021, the number of women at the federal senior pay level has increased from 25.5% to 39.3%. There also have been increases in participation rates at such level for Black, Hispanic and Asian employees. 

However EEOC acknowledged that some groups were still underrepresented at the senior pay level compared to the government’s permanent workforce. In fiscal 2021, Hispanic workers made up 5.1% of individuals in the senior pay grade despite being 10.1% of the overall federal workforce. For Black employees, the relative comparison is 12.6% and 20.5% respectively. 

Relatedly, the Office of Personnel Management in July encouraged agencies to conduct analyses to discover pay disparities along gender or racial and ethnic lines among their workforces. 

Government Accountability Office in 2023 found that Hispanic representation in the federal workforce was lagging behind the overall U.S. civilian labor force. 

“Ensuring equal opportunity for all federal workers requires constant effort and vigilance,” said Dexter Brooks, associate director of the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations, in a statement. “Looking toward the future, the EEOC will continue to monitor MD-715 data to ensure equal employment opportunity for all in the federal sector.”

The campaign of former President Donald Trump has missed deadlines to accept assistance from the federal government to prepare for a transition should he win the election, potentially making a change in administration even more stressful for federal employees. 

Each campaign is supposed to execute a memorandum of understanding regarding transition assistance with the General Services Administration by Sept. 1 and with the White House by Oct. 1. GSA’s agreement covers office space and information technology support, while the one for the White House entails transition staffers’ access to federal agency facilities, documents and employees. 

Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign reached an agreement with GSA on Sept. 19, almost three weeks late, and a Biden administration official told Government Executive in a statement that it has entered an MOU with Harris, although such a document has not yet been made public. However her campaign’s accompanying ethics plan for transition team members has been posted. 

The official said that the federal transition coordinator is “actively working with the Trump transition team to complete an MOU.” A GSA spokesperson said that the agency “is prepared to begin providing services to the Trump transition team once an MOU is executed.” 

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment but has previously told Government Executive that it is continuing “to evaluate and communicate with GSA about the options related to the support offered by GSA.” 

It would be challenging for the White House to establish the second agreement with Trump without his first signing GSA’s document, as that agency provides secure networks and .gov email addresses that enable federal employees to safely exchange information with verified individuals. 

“[Agencies] need to plan. There’s a lot of investment that goes in, so the uncertainty of not having those MOUs in place presents a real challenge to them,” said Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, at a press briefing on Monday. “There’s going to be a ton of work that has to be done…the early investment is critical to get it done and not to put even more burden on the career civil servants.” 

PPS, a nonpartisan good government group, hosts a Center for Presidential Transition that provides assistance to campaigns and agencies with respect to changes in administration. 

Valerie Smith Boyd, who leads the PPS Center for Presidential Transition, said the agreement with the White House is necessary for the incoming administration to access the agencies it is about to manage. 

“We have one president at a time. The federal agencies are part of the current administration. And for federal agencies to share information and to meet with a president-elect, it’s important to define the terms of where that takes place [and] what type of information may be shared at a high level,” she said. 

While the MOUs are optional, Stier argued they’re “optional at a real risk.” 

“On this proposition [of] ‘we don’t trust the government,’ that’s a problem, because at the end of the day, if you’re running it, you’re going to have to be trusting it,” he said. “There may be elements of things that you’re concerned about, but you’re going to need to engage, and if you don’t engage, that really will put our country in jeopardy.”

Boyd did stress that other aspects of transitional planning are moving along. 

The White House set up the Transition Coordinating Council composed of senior Biden administration officials. Both campaigns have named individuals to lead their transition teams. And each agency has named an employee in the career Senior Executive Service as transition director. 

Eric Katz contributed to this report.

For the first time in American history, quantum computing was mentioned by a candidate during a presidential debate, on Sept. 10, 2024. After Vice President Kamala Harris brought up quantum technology, she and former President Donald Trump went on to have a heated back-and-forth about American chipmaking and China’s rise in semiconductor manufacturing. Science and technology policy usually takes a back seat to issues such as immigration, the economy and health care during election season.

What’s changed for 2024?

From COVID-19 to climate change, ChatGPT to, yes, quantum computers, science-related issues are on the minds of American policymakers and voters alike. The federal government spends nearly US$200 billion each year on scientific research and development to address these challenges and many others. Presidents and Congress, however, rarely agree on how – and how much – money should be spent on science.

With the increasing public focus on global competitiveness, the climate crisis and artificial intelligence, a closer look at Trump’s and Harris’ records on science and technology policy could provide a hint about how they’d approach these topics if elected this fall.

Two distinct visions for science funding

If politics can be described as “who gets what and when,” U.S. science and technology policy can be assessed through the annual budget process for R&D. By this measure, the differences between the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations couldn’t be starker.

In his first budget request to Congress, in 2017, Trump spurned decades of precedent, proposing historic cuts across nearly every federal science agency. In particular, Trump targeted climate-related programs at the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Trump’s fiscal policy took a page from Reagan-era conservative orthodoxy, prioritizing military spending over social programs, including R&D. Unlike Reagan, however, Trump also took aim at basic research funding, an area with long-standing bipartisan support in Congress. His three subsequent budget proposals were no different: across-the-board reductions to federal research programs, while pushing for increases to defense technology development and demonstration projects.

Congress rebuked nearly all of Trump’s requests. Instead, it passed some of the largest increases to federal R&D programs in U.S. history, even before accounting for emergency spending packages funded as part of the government’s pandemic response.

In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration made science and innovation a centerpiece of its early policy agenda – with budgets to match. Leveraging the slim Democratic majority during the 117th Congress, Biden and Harris shepherded three landmark bills into law: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. These laws contain significant R&D provisions focused on environmental projects (IIJA), clean energy (IRA) and American semiconductor manufacturing (CHIPS).

CHIPS set up programs within the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce to create regional technology hubs in support of American manufacturing. The act also set ambitious funding targets for federal science agencies, especially at NSF, calling for its budget to be doubled from $9 billion to over $18 billion over the course of five years.

Despite its initial push for R&D, the Biden-Harris administration’s final two budget proposals offered far less to science. Years of deficit spending and a new Republican majority in the House cast a cloud of budget austerity over Congress. Instead of moving toward doubling NSF’s budget, the agency suffered an 8% decrease in fiscal year 2024 – its biggest cut in over three decades. For FY2025, which runs from Oct. 1, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2025, Biden and Harris requested a meager 3% increase for NSF, billions of dollars short of CHIPS-enacted spending levels.

An emerging consensus on China

On technology policy, Biden and Harris share more with Trump than they let on.

Their approach to competing with China on tech follows Trump’s lead: They’ve expanded tariffs on Chinese goods and severely limited China’s access to American-made computer chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

Biden and Harris have also ramped up research security efforts intended to protect U.S. ideas and innovation from China. Trump launched the China Initiative as an attempt to stop the Chinese government from stealing American research. The Biden-Harris administration ended the program in 2022, but pieces of it remain in place. Scientific collaborations between the United States and China continue to decline, to the detriment of American scientific leadership.

The Biden-Harris administration has also drawn from Trump-era policy to strengthen America’s leadership in “industries of the future.” The term, coined by Trump’s then-chief science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, refers to five emerging technology areas: AI, quantum science, advanced manufacturing, advanced communications and biotechnology. This language has been parroted by the Biden-Harris administration as part of its focus on American manufacturing and throughout Harris’ campaign, including during the debate.

In short, both candidates align with the emerging Washington bipartisan consensus on China: innovation policy at home, strategic decoupling abroad.

Science advice not always a welcome resource

Trump’s dismissal of and at times outright contempt for scientific consensus is well documented. From “Sharpiegate,” when he mapped his own projected path for Hurricane Dorian, to pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, World Health Organization and the Iran nuclear deal, Trump has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any advice, let alone from scientists.

Indeed, Trump took over two years to hire Droegemeier as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, or OSTP, doubling the previous record for the length of time a president has gone without a scientific adviser. This absence was no doubt reflected in Trump’s short-on-science budget requests to Congress, especially during the beginning of his administration.

On the other hand, the Biden-Harris administration has promoted science and innovation as a core part of its broader economic policy agenda. It elevated the role of OSTP: Biden is the first president to name his science adviser – a position currently held by Arati Prabhakar – as a member of his Cabinet.

By law, the president is required to appoint an OSTP director. But it is up to the president to decide how and when to use their advice. If the new White House wants the U.S. to remain a global leader in R&D, the science adviser will need to continue to fight for it.

Kenneth Evans, Scholar in Science and Technology Policy, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

With policy change in place and new oversight over the National Background Investigation Services, it’s time for the government’s Trusted Workforce 2.0 program to pivot to efforts that will truly impact and affect the most critical piece of the Trusted Workforce: the Trusted Worker. 

While the government has changed dozens of policies over the past several years of its Trusted Workforce reform effort, unless you’re a government policy expert or C-suite security executive, you’re unlikely to have read or even truly tracked those reform efforts. But as Trusted Workforce 2.0 begins to meet its significant milestones, as tracked in the quarterly updates released by the Performance Accountability Council Program Management Office), in the next stage of government reform it’s crucial for every worker across government, regardless of their role, to be aware of these changes. 

At the heart of Trusted Workforce is a move to change personnel vetting from a simple “in or out” scenario and to think of the Trusted Workforce beyond the world of clearance eligibility. The reality is that the Trusted Workforce involves millions more individuals than just the security cleared population, and individuals who serve the government. Over the next year, the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency will enroll the Non-Sensitive Public Trust Population into Continuous Vetting. To date, CV has been the biggest change in the security reform process, changing every 5-to-10-year episodic reinvestigations to ongoing, continuous vetting for more comprehensive risk management and mitigation. 

The goal of this enrollment is twofold: It will help the government better track its public trust workforce and help with clearance mobility and transfer of trust—one of five vetting scenarios spelled out in Trusted Workforce.

Workforce issues aren’t just overhead functions – they are mission-critical efforts that cost the government time and money. A 2019 report by the Intelligence and National Security Alliance noted that issues and delays in reciprocity and adjudication could be costing the government 90,000 lost contractor labor years valued at more than $8 billion. DCSA has made strides in improving security clearance reciprocity into its workforce, but those aims across the broader suitability and security community have not been as noteworthy.

But that’s where the enrollment of the NSPT population into CV and new oversight into making progress under the government’s five new vetting scenarios can make a fundamental difference in how the federal workforce operates, and enable a truly candidate-centric vetting process. 

With policies in place and a renewed commitment to technological progress, personnel vetting is shifting focus to its five new vetting scenarios:

1. Initial vetting: Moving “outsiders to insiders.”
2. Continuous vetting: The most significant transformation of Trusted Workforce 2.0. Continuous vetting allows risks to be identified when they happen, not on a 5-or-10-year investigation timeline.
3. Upgrade in trust: New vetting that allows an individual to access information or facilities at a higher security or sensitivity level. 
4. Transfer of trust: Typically referred to as reciprocity, transfer of trust reform includes overhauling how individuals transfer in, out of, and between trusted positions. Enabled by CV, transfer of trust could create workforce mobility and significant resource savings. 
5. Reestablishment of trust: The government has realized that not everyone spends an entire career in the same agency or even in the same industry. Reestablishment of trust aims to make moving back into the federal and trusted workforce more seamless. 

This is policy in practice. Placing new emphasis on executing each vetting scenario, improving workforce mobility will be a natural consequence. Unlike today’s scenario, where workers who have suitability at GSA may wait months to onboard at DHS, or workers at DHS may wait months to even transfer positions to a different component of the same agency, the improved tracking of suitability determinations should lead to true reciprocity and transfer of trust.

Those interested in improving the security and mobility of the federal workforce will need to continue to follow the government’s progress on putting these five vetting scenarios in place. This is a better policy that creates better processes across the Trusted Workforce and a critical step forward in clearance reform.

Brett Mencin is the Vice President of Xcelerate Solutions, overseeing the performance and growth of the Enterprise Vetting & Analysis portfolio, which supports DHS, DOD, and FBI. With more than 15 years of experience in enterprise vetting and analysis, his extensive knowledge and dedication to enhancing Trusted Workforce 2.0 make him a highly sought-after and passionate resource for driving change and improvement.

The Veterans Health Administration has expanded a rideshare program across its operations to help retired servicemembers who are facing mobility issues access critical medical services.

Initially known as the VHA-Uber Health Connect initiative — or VUHC — the program was conceived in 2021 as a project by Indra Sandal, then the innovation specialist at the Memphis VA Medical Center and the recipient of a fellowship from the VHA Innovation Ecosystem. 

In an interview with Nextgov/FCW, Sandal said veterans’ frequent issues with traveling to and from medical appointments convinced her of the need to focus her project on creating an innovative solution to address these concerns.

”Transportation is one of the largest barriers to access to care for the veterans,” she said, noting that previous VHA studies have found that roughly 1.8 million medical appointments are canceled each year because of a lack of mobility options. 

Sandal — who served as the VUHC’s national lead and is currently the chief of innovation at James A. Haley Veterans’ Hospital in Tampa, Florida — added that canceled and rescheduled appointments have also been a financial drain, costing the agency nearly $4.4 billion each year.

The VUHC initiative formally rolled out in January 2022 as a pilot collaboration between the VHA Innovation Ecosystem, the Veteran Transportation Program and Uber Health. The program was the first time that Uber Health — which calls itself “a HIPAA-enabled platform for non-emergency medical transportation services” — was combined with a large healthcare system. 

“We wanted to optimize the process and wanted to use the one rideshare, which was Uber Health,” Sandal said, adding that the department integrated the Uber Health dashboard “in the transportation system of the VA” so officials could schedule rides for veterans.

Veterans were able to participate in the program if they were eligible for beneficiary travel and lacked their own vehicle. The cost of the rides was covered by the VA medical center. 

Through the rideshare program, veterans could schedule transportation either 15-20 minutes ahead of time or as far out as six months. Sandal said the opportunity to schedule rides far in advance “was a game changer for the dialysis patients,” in particular, since those veterans are on a more scheduled routine. 

The VUHC initiative was implemented in two phases, beginning with 10 VA medical centers and then expanding to an additional 58 VA centers by March 2024. During the life of the VUHC program, roughly 38,000 unique veterans were able to complete approximately 263,000 rides to and from medical facilities.

VA announced at the beginning of May that it was expanding the program across the enterprise and would be rebranding it as the Veterans Transportation Program Beneficiary Travel Rideshare Services. The department also added Lyft as one of the rideshare services that veterans could access through the initiative.

The expanded program is now being used by 101 VA medical center sites, of which 15 use Lyft and nine use both providers. As of data from the end of August, Sandal said the rideshare initiative — both the VUHC and the current iteration — has provided a total 438,000 rides. 

Sandal said the Veteran Transportation Program office is also working to integrate the dashboard for the rideshare program into its large ‘mode of transportation’ dashboard so mobility managers at VA medical facilities have the ability to see what types of transportation options are available for veterans. 

“That’s a big, big piece of it, she said. “By this December, all the modes of transportation will be integrated together on one platform.”

The U.S. Postal Service is moving forward with a plan to slow down delivery for a relatively small portion of mail, telling its regulator the changes would save nearly $4 billion annually and better reflect the evolving nature of mail usage. 

USPS has requested an advisory opinion from the Postal Regulatory Commission on its Regional Transportation Optimization plan, which requires mail to sit overnight at post offices instead of being collected each evening for transportation to a processing center. The mailing agency has been rolling out the changes on a limited basis and now, despite mixed results and significant pushback, it is looking to implement the plan on a national level. 

Only some facilities will be impacted by the reforms, namely those more than 50 miles from the Postal Service’s new Regional Processing and Distribution Centers. USPS plans to stand up about 60 of those mega-centers, most of which will be located in urban areas. That has led to criticism that postal management’s mail slowdown will disproportionately impact rural communities. 

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy has said the change is a key part of his 10-year plan to fix USPS’ finances and operations, noting it would save between $3.6 billion and $3.7 billion annually. The existing delivery model, postal management said, in which mail is collected at every post office both in the mornings and in the evenings, is based on a “bygone era of significant single-piece letter mail volumes.” While the system may have made sense in that reality, USPS said, it has “engendered costs impossible to justify in today’s environment.” 

The Postal Service stressed that all First-Class mail will still be delivered in one to five days. USPS previously slowed down its delivery standards in 2021, allowing itself four or five days to deliver some mail in a move that affected about 40% of First-Class volume. 

The new proposal would slow down delivery for about 11% of First-Class mail by volume, though it would require mail to sit overnight at a majority of post offices across the country. Mail volumes are concentrated in urban areas, meaning roughly 75% of First-Class pieces would be unaffected. About 40% of single-piece, First-Class mail would be delivered more slowly. 

USPS said it would deliver 14% of First-Class mail more quickly as a result of its changes, in large part because local mail can move to a processing center without waiting for slower, more rural pieces to come in. 

While postal management is seeking PRC’s advisory opinion, as it must whenever implementing change that would “generally affect service on a nationwide or substantially nationwide basis,” the ruling is non-binding. PRC has repeatedly expressed concern over DeJoy’s reforms and earlier this year called on him to pause all changes to his network. As part of its request, USPS is also asking for an opinion on its processing plant consolidation plan that will result in the 60 mega centers. 

Some areas where USPS has piloted its changes, most notably Richmond, Virginia, and Atlanta, have seen mail delays spike as a result. The Postal Service said service there is steadily improving and it will implement lessons learned as it expands the reforms on nationwide basis. DeJoy recently told Congress some hiccups along the way were expected, noting “the first rockets that went to the moon blew up.”

The blowback from the initial efforts was significant enough that DeJoy vowed to pause them until after the election, which promises large-scale mail voting. The sites that have already implemented the new collection schedules will receive extra transportation for ballots specifically starting Oct. 21, while plant consolidation efforts are largely paused until 2025. 

In addition to the PRC, DeJoy’s plans have drawn criticism from large-scale mailers and a bipartisan chorus on Capitol Hill. Even before USPS formalized its proposal, more than a dozen lawmakers from both parties wrote a letter to DeJoy urging him not to go through with his mail optimization plan. 

“While we understand the need for modernization and financial changes across the Postal Service, these changes cannot come at the expense of rural residents who rely on the USPS,” the 18 House members said. “For many families that we represent, a one-day delivery delay could mean late fees on a bill, a held-up paycheck creating financial stress and increased health risks awaiting critical medication.”

Lawmakers and stakeholders expressed concern that USPS was looking to implement its reforms as on-time delivery has plummeted. The agency delivered 85% of First-Class mail on time in fiscal 2024, down from 93% the previous year. For mail traveling greater distances, pieces in a three-to-five day delivery window and those more likely affected by the new changes, USPS met its target around 73% of the time. 

“At the conclusion of an absolutely dismal year of service performance, it is disappointing that the USPS response seems most focused on changing how performance gets measured and reported than on improving the experience of actual customers,” said Mike Plunkett, president of the Association for Postal Commerce, which represents large-scale mailers. He added the potential cost savings are significant, but the agency has a weak track record in meeting its ambitious accounting goals. 

USPS said it will quickly address any service issues that crop up during implementation, which will not occur for at least three months. 

“The Postal Service is committed to minimizing the disruptions that occur, correcting any issues in an effective manner and adjusting our processes to improve our execution of these changes moving forward,” the agency said. 

It added that it was unmoved by concerns raised after it solicited feedback last month about the inordinate burden of its reforms on rural communities, particularly customers awaiting Social Security checks and medicines. 

“The Postal Service has carefully considered these views and has determined to move forward with the proposal,” USPS said. 

The agency stressed that its current system requires extra trips with trucks filled nowhere near their capacities and the new plan would allow for better utilization. USPS will no longer have to pay contractors to sit on “layovers” after they drop off morning mail and await evening deliveries, it added. 

Ultimately, the Postal Service said, the current system is untenable and the changes better account for the varying distances pieces of mail must travel within the same region. USPS said it had hoped to institute its “optimization” plan without having to change its delivery standards, but found that was not possible.