Bill Overview
Title: Supporting Families of the Fallen Act
Description: This act increases from $400,000 to $500,000 the maximum coverage amount for members (or former members) of a uniformed service under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program and the Veterans' Group Life Insurance program. This act takes effect on the later of 60 days after the date of enactment or the date on which the Department of Veterans Affairs determines that (1) the increased coverage amounts and the premiums for the coverage are administratively and actuarially sound for the insurance programs, and (2) will not result in the programs operating at a loss.
Sponsors: Sen. Tuberville, Tommy [R-AL]
Target Audience
Population: Families of U.S. servicemembers and veterans
Estimated Size: 31325000
- The bill pertains to the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program and the Veterans' Group Life Insurance program.
- These programs provide life insurance coverage to active and former members of the U.S. military services.
- Active and former military personnel are the primary population enrolled in these life insurance programs.
- Families of these service members will directly benefit from the increased coverage, particularly in the event of a servicemember's death.
- Internationally, only the families of U.S. servicemembers and veterans would be directly impacted.
Reasoning
- Approximately 31.3 million U.S. servicemembers and veterans and their families could be impacted by this policy as per the estimated target population.
- The increase in insurance coverage directly benefits those who would unfortunately experience the loss of a servicemember, providing more financial security.
- The population will include a heterogeneous mix of active servicemembers, veterans, and their families, with varying impacts based on individual circumstances.
- The budget constraint in year 1 suggests a need to prioritize families most at risk of economic insecurity after a loss, though long-term financial impacts spread over the eligible population could also be considered.
- In this context, 'none', 'low', 'medium', and 'high' impact ratings capture direct financial dependency on the insurance payout.
Simulated Interviews
Active Duty Navy (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate the increased coverage, although I hope my family will never need to use it.
- It adds peace of mind knowing the future of my children could be more secure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Veteran, currently in civilian workforce (Columbus, OH)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see that the government is recognizing the value of life insurance for families.
- Having left the service, it's reassuring to know that my kids would be better financially protected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Active Duty Army (Fort Bragg, NC)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's another layer of security for my wife, which means a lot.
- Even though the chance of danger seems far, this helps me feel more prepared.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Veteran, retired (Tucson, AZ)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I'm less directly impacted, I think it's a necessary step to help younger families.
- It would have been a great support for my family in earlier years.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Reservist, civilian engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increasing the life insurance amount is good for those actively deployed.
- It doesn't affect me much day-to-day, but knowing my loved ones are better covered matters.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Veteran, small business owner (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- An increase in coverage is a good thing for vets still supporting families.
- This policy will not directly impact my wellbeing, but I know other families that would have benefited greatly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Active Duty Air Force (El Paso, TX)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 19/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having joined recently, the policy doesn't change my feelings significantly.
- It makes sense to offer more coverage given the risks involved.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Veteran, government employee (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This brings some peace knowing my child will be secured financially.
- Adapting post-service is challenging; this policy would reassure many.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Active Duty Army, considering transition to civilian (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a smart move from a financial perspective, though I'm not directly worried about this coverage.
- Planning for the future, this adds another layer of confidence.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Caregiver, spouse of a veteran (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is overdue and essential for families like mine.
- With our precarious financial status, every bit of increased support matters immensely.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $750000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $750000000)
Year 3: $500000000 (Low: $250000000, High: $750000000)
Year 5: $550000000 (Low: $275000000, High: $825000000)
Year 10: $600000000 (Low: $300000000, High: $900000000)
Year 100: $1500000000 (Low: $1000000000, High: $2000000000)
Key Considerations
- The main financial impact arises from the potential increase in insurance payouts due to raised coverage limits.
- Adjustments in premium settings could counterbalance costs if adjusted to reflect the new maximum benefits.
- Demographic changes among service members and veterans could affect projected costs and should be monitored.