Have past shutdowns led to special enrollment periods or agency waivers for benefits changes?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Past federal shutdowns have not produced a consistent, government‑wide practice of creating special enrollment periods (SEPs) for benefit changes, but they have repeatedly forced agencies to use ad hoc waivers, grace periods, and operational workarounds for specific programs—ranging from fee waivers and deferred appointments to assurances that statutory open‑enrollment windows (like Medicare and the ACA) would continue to run [1] [2] [3]. Reporting and agency guidance show that the response is patchwork: some benefits continue untouched, some services (especially new enrollments and in‑person appointments) are delayed, and some agencies have explicitly offered limited waivers or temporary accommodations [4] [5] [2].
1. How shutdown mechanics shape benefits — mandatory vs. discretionary
The Antideficiency Act and longstanding OMB/OPM guidance determine who works and what stops during a funding lapse, and they have predictable effects on benefits administration: mandatory entitlements generally continue in payment, but discretionary staff who process enrollments, applications, or customer service can be furloughed, producing delays to administrative functions even if checks keep flowing [6] [1]. That legal framework explains why Social Security checks continued in past shutdowns even as staff who handled new enrollments or card requests were initially furloughed in earlier shutdowns [1], and why agencies must make fine‑grained, program‑by‑program decisions about exceptions [7] [8].
2. Examples: accommodation, waivers, and service workarounds in past shutdowns
Historical and recent examples show the government tends toward narrow, program‑specific fixes rather than sweeping special enrollment months: during the 2018–19 partial shutdown TSA PreCheck applications were accepted while Global Entry enrollment appointments were canceled [2], USDA adopted policies in 2019 to delay some farm loan payment obligations during a lapse (noting agency‑level discretion) [4], and some Members’ offices described a 30‑day waiver on late payment charges for qualifying customers as a shutdown accommodation [5]. These are operational workarounds and limited waivers rather than formal, cross‑agency SEPs that change statutory enrollment windows [2] [5] [4].
3. Health‑plan enrollments and the most visible limits
For high‑visibility health programs, the record is mixed but leans toward maintaining statutory enrollment timelines: multiple offices and advisories during recent shutdowns emphasized that Medicare open enrollment and the ACA open‑enrollment period would continue [2] [3], and federal employee health benefits (FEHB) coverage persists even if premiums cannot be collected during the lapse (they accrue and are reconciled when pay resumes) [4] [6]. Those continuations are typically statutory or administrative commitments, not new SEPs created because of a shutdown; where in‑person support or enrollment assistance is furloughed, beneficiaries may face practical barriers even if the formal enrollment window remains open [4] [6].
4. What’s not supported by the reporting — no sweeping precedent for shutdown‑created SEPs
The available reporting and official guidance do not establish a clear precedent that past shutdowns created broad, formal special enrollment periods across major benefits systems; instead, agencies have issued targeted accommodations, deferred actions, or clarified that statutory enrollment periods will continue [1] [2] [3]. That absence matters: the pattern is decentralised, based on agency legal counsel, OMB/OPM guidance, and program statutes, so any future SEP would likely be a program‑specific decision or require affirmative Congressional or agency rulemaking rather than becoming an automatic feature of shutdown practice [8] [6].
5. Practical takeaway and limits of available evidence
In practice, beneficiaries have sometimes received relief—fee waivers, deferred deadlines, or continued open‑enrollment assurances—during shutdowns, but the evidence in the reviewed reporting shows these are case‑by‑case measures rather than a reliable, government‑wide policy of creating new SEPs whenever a shutdown occurs [5] [2] [4]. Reporting limitations: the assembled sources document examples and legal frameworks but do not catalog every agency concession across every shutdown, so absence of a documented SEP in these sources does not prove one never occurred in niche programs; it does, however, support the authoritative conclusion that broad SEPs are not the standard response [1] [6].