From: bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil (CMSgt Mike Bergman)
Newsgroups: soc.veterans
Subject: AF News Svc 11/10/92
Date: 12 Nov 1992 08:41:20 -0600
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

867.  Medical partnership program
868.  Women's commission report
				 &    &    &
				 &    &    &
				 &    &    &
867.  Medical partnership program
by TSgt. David P. Masko
Air Force News Service
     WASHINGTON -- To ensure the availability of top medical care for military
dependents and retirees, Air Force hospitals continue to augment their staffs
with civilian doctors and other medical specialists.
     "No matter where you go in the Air Force today, we're always using some
mix of civilian and military health care providers," said Capt. Brian Hurley,
health care policy officer for the partnership program.
     "The partnership program allows us to bring the resources together in a
way that makes it easier for the patient to access care, and more cost
effective for the Air Force to deliver it," Hurley said.
     Partnership allows medical treatment facility commanders to augment their
staffs with civilian providers using CHAMPUS funds, but without co-payment or
deductible costs to the patient, said Lt. Gen. Alexander M. Sloan, Air Force
surgeon general.
     "In 1991, more than $100 million in CHAMPUS funds paid for the services
of partnership providers," Sloan said during a congressional hearing earlier
this year.
     In addition, partnership is credited with improving access to primary
care and expanding surgical capability in a variety of specialties including
obstetrics, gynecology, general surgery, cardiology and orthopedics.
     The partnership program, introduced in 1987, has been growing since its
inception, and now is in use at 90 percent of the Air Force hospitals in the
United States.
     Similarly, the Air Force has developed an external partnership program
that allows its doctors to work in civilian hospitals where they can treat
military beneficiaries.
     This external program gives the military provider access to high-tech
equipment facilities not available in some smaller Air Force hospitals and
clinics, Hurley said.
     Most patients first learn of the program when calling the hospital for a
medical appointment.  If no military providers are available, the appointment
clerks will often inform the patients of the availability of a partnership
care provider.
     "Freedom of choice for the patient is maintained in this setting," Hurley
said.  "In other words, if the patient would prefer not to see a partner, they
can continue to use their standard CHAMPUS benefits."
     For patients who choose a partnership provider, a cost share is not
incurred.  However, a cost share of 20 percent is charged to active-duty
family members, and 25 percent for retirees and their family members for
outside medical services under the CHAMPUS program.
     In an effort to come to grips with the impact of the spiralling cost of
health care delivery in the United States, the Defense Department implemented
the coordinated care program that will include partnerships as an important
component.
     Like the partnership program, the Coordinated Care Program integrates the
delivery of care in military medical facilities and under the CHAMPUS program.
 The integrated system will be locally managed by military medical commanders
responsible for the delivery, cost, and quality of health services provided to
beneficiaries in their area.
     "We'll never have the number of blue-suit military physicians that we
need to meet the medical needs of 9.3 million beneficiaries, and we've always
had to use some civilian resources," Hurley said.  Partnership is a program
that tries to use our total medical resources more effectively."
     Currently, 73 Air Force hospitals and clinics in the United States use
partnership providers for their dependent and retiree patients.  Partnership
is also used at some bases in Europe and Japan.
     "Although overseas partnerships are somewhat limited because of language
barriers, our facilities overseas have entered into partnership agreements,
and they have been successful," Hurley said.
     Patients who use CHAMPUS frequently or are scheduled for admission to a
civilian medical facility, should inquire about the partnership program, he
said.
     Communication between the beneficiary and the provider is all important.
"We want to assure that out-patients have timely access to care, that the
program is understandable, and that it provides high-quality, cost effective
services."
     Hurley advises active-duty dependents and retired beneficiaries to
contact their health benefits adviser or patient administration officer if
they are interested in learning more.
     "People should understand that a 'partner' is a civilian provider, and
that they do have the option to use that provider or select their own."


868.  Women in combat roles
by TSgt. David P. Masko
Air Force News Service
     WASHINGTON -- A special commission studying assignment of women in the
armed forces is expected to tell President Bush it does not favor women
filling air combat roles.
     The Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed
Forces voted Nov. 1-3 to uphold the current exclusions barring women from
ground and air combat, and agreed that these exclusions be made law.  However,
members voted to open combat assignments, never before open to women, aboard
some combat ships.
     Although Congress voted in May 1991 to allow qualified women to fly
aircraft in combat situations, it created the commission in the 1992 Defense
Authorization Act as a compromise for lawmakers opposed to the law.
     The vote to ban women from combat comes as no surprise, said commission
member and former Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services
chairwoman Meredith Neizer.
     "For female Air Force pilots, our recommendation probably isn't the best
news.  In fact, I can guarantee it isn't the best news," Neizer said.
     "We met some very sharp female aviators as part of our testimony, and
again, as far as I'm concerned, I think they are still the right people for
the job.  But the decision and recommendation of this commission does not
reflect that."
     Neizer said she would tell women pilots to "hang in there, because ours
is not the final word, and hopefully that issue will be pursued further."
     The commission was established to assess laws and policies governing the
assignment of women in the military and to make recommendations to the
president.
     The 15-member panel is now entering the final stage of drafting the
report, which it will present to Bush Nov. 15.  Bush will forward the report
to Congress with his recommendations Dec. 15.
     In the commission's seven months of deliberations, "we found no evidence"
that there should be any change to the policy that bans women from some combat
roles, said retired Air Force Gen. Robert Herres, commission chairman.
     Herres, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and commander,
United States Space Command, said the commission recommendation was not to
assign women to combat aviation positions, but to put back into legislation
the law permitting women to be assigned to combat aircraft.
     The bi-partisan group began meeting in March to hear testimony from a
broad range of experts concerning combat, cohesion, family and cultural
issues, as well as former prisoners of war.  Discussions centered on the
nature of American society and the cultural consequences of proposed changes
in military policies on the culture and national defense.
     Another commission member, retired Army Gen. Maxwell Thurman, concurred
with the commission's single issue of not allowing women to fill air combat
roles.  "Pilots have to carry the fight directly to the enemy, whereas people
on a ship do not go directly in harm's way," Thurman said Nov. 9, during
deliberations over the commission's vote and panel findings.
     In both aerial and ground activity, commissioners investigated the
proximity of women combatants to enemy-held or contested territory, and the
ability of the enemy to take and hold prisoners.
     In an interview with Air Force News Service Nov. 9, Charles Moskos, a
military sociologist and commission member, said the reasoning for excluding
women from combat aircraft and allowing women aboard combat vessels, came down
to a couple of key points.
     "One was the likelihood of a women becoming a prisoner of war, which was
much greater for a pilot than it is for a sailor," he said.  "And secondly, I
think the argument was that the success of the Navy already with women aboard
non-combatant ocean-going vessels was a kind of a pattern for the future with
combatant vessels."
     Moskos agreed with Neizer's assessment on the exclusion law and said,
"The commission's recommendations might not make everybody happy, but let's
see what the future holds.
     "We don't know who the Clinton administration will select for secretary
of defense, and secretaries for the various services... the cast of the new
Defense Department is going to be a very important factor in how much
acceptance our report will have."
     The commission reported that polls conducted by the Roper Organization
found that 57 percent of active-duty military personnel favor the combat
exclusion policies while 42 percent oppose them.
     The poll showed that 72 percent of those assigned to the combat arms
oppose assigning women to combat.  More than 60 percent of those polled who
were in the Persian Gulf War said sexual activities occurred between men and
women deployed to the Gulf.
     During their deliberations, the commission surveyed active-duty
personnel, the general public and more than 3,000 retired generals and
admirals.  In addition, the commission visited 31 military installations and
heard testimony from more than 300 witnesses.
     The general officer - admiral survey elicited the following information:
     -- Overall, 90 percent of those polled say they oppose assignment to
infantry, while 71 percent oppose the assignment of women to combat aircraft.
     -- Retired Marine Corps generals were the most consistently opposed to
women in combat:  83 percent oppose women in combat aircraft, 90 percent
oppose women on combatant ships and 99 percent oppose women in the infantry.
     -- The most recently retired flag officers (1990-1992) are less opposed
to women in combat than the older retirees.
     "It is apparent," the commission's report concluded, "that this unique
military community opposed assigning women to combat specialties."
--

-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     /