10
Loading video...
By Justin T. Pierce
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Each part of the federal benefits package has its own purpose, but when you look at them without the bigger picture, it’s easy to feel unsure about what to do. That is the problem I see repeatedly in federal retirement planning.
Federal employees do not lack benefits. They may have a FERS (Federal Employees Retirement System) pension, the Thrift Savings Plan, Social Security, health insurance, life insurance, and survivor benefits. The challenge is that each of those systems comes with its own rules, timelines and financial consequences.
Treating them as separate decisions can produce a retirement plan that looks sound piece by piece but works very differently when those pieces are put together.
Read More on Leadership Insights
That matters more as costs rise.
For 2026, the Office of Personnel Management reported that the average enrollee share of Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) premiums increased 12.3 percent, after a 13.5 percent increase in 2025.
At the same time, FERS retirees received a 2 percent cost-of-living adjustment for 2026, compared with 2.8 percent for Social Security and CSRS beneficiaries.
Those figures illustrate the coordination problem. A pension increase cannot be evaluated separately from healthcare costs. A retiree may see one source of income increase while one of their largest recurring expenses rises faster.
Benefits Need To Be Considered Holistically
The relevant question is not simply, "what will my pension be?" It is: "what will my pension, healthcare costs, Social Security and investment income look like together?"
The same principle applies before retirement.
Beginning in 2026, participants with prior-year wages above $150,000 who make catch-up contributions to plans such as the TSP must generally make those catch-up contributions on a Roth basis. The catch-up limit for 2026 is $8,000, rising to $11,250 for participants ages 60 through 63.
That may sound like a narrow retirement-plan rule. It is not.
Changing the tax treatment of money going into the TSP can affect taxes today, withdrawals later, and the role those assets play alongside a pension and Social Security.
Healthcare presents another example.
Eligible federal employees can continue FEHB coverage into retirement if they satisfy the applicable enrollment requirements, including generally being enrolled or covered for the five years immediately before retirement, or since their first opportunity to enroll if that period is shorter.
Then Medicare can enter the picture at 65.
At that point, the question is no longer simply whether someone has FEHB. It becomes how FEHB and Medicare should work together, whether the existing FEHB option still makes sense, and what the combined cost means for the household’s retirement income.
Life insurance deserves the same treatment.
FEGLI (Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance) includes Basic Insurance, Option A, Option B, and Option C, with different costs and coverage rules. Optional coverage can become more expensive with age.
A decision about life insurance should therefore be made alongside survivor needs, estate planning and other assets rather than treated as an isolated benefits election.
Then there is the relationship between the TSP (Thrift Savings Plan) and Social Security.
People often ask, "When should I claim Social Security? But that is only half the question.
Delaying Social Security may require larger TSP withdrawals during the years before claiming. Taking Social Security earlier may reduce the amount that needs to come from invested assets.
Neither approach is automatically right. Longevity, taxes, household income, survivor benefits, and investment objectives can all change the answer.
The mistake is assuming one decision can be optimized without considering what it does to everything else.
That is why I believe federal employees should stop thinking about retirement as a collection of individual benefits and start thinking about it as one financial system.
In the strongest version of that system, the pieces reinforce one another. The pension provides dependable income. Healthcare remains affordable. TSP withdrawals work with the household’s tax strategy. Social Security complements rather than conflicts with investment withdrawals. Insurance reflects genuine survivor needs.
The opposite can also happen.
Someone can spend decades saving diligently and still enter retirement with healthcare costs they did not anticipate, unnecessary insurance expenses, an inefficient withdrawal strategy, or an avoidable tax problem because every decision was made independently.
Federal employees can have excellent individual benefits and still leave financial value on the table if those benefits are not coordinated.
That is why this work should begin before the retirement paperwork arrives.
I generally believe broader planning should begin five to 10 years before separation. That gives employees time to review TSP allocations, insurance costs, healthcare choices, taxes, and income sources while there is still time to make meaningful adjustments.
The final six months should have a different purpose. That is when strategy becomes execution: verifying service credit and high-3 salary information, reviewing benefit elections and beneficiary designations, and making sure retirement documents are complete.
Federal employees spend entire careers earning a valuable package of benefits. The objective should not simply be to collect each one. It should be to make them work together.
Before making your next retirement decision, ask one additional question: what does this change elsewhere in my plan?
That question may be more valuable than any single retirement rule of thumb.
Justin T. Pierce is a managing partner and fiduciary at Federal Employee Benefit Advisors. All opinions are the author’s own.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines